Sunday, September 24, 2017

The City of Nephi: Built After Arab Style

Legendary Wendell Phillips, a paleontologist/archaeologist who led an adventuress life along the lines of Indiana Jones and Lawrence of Arabia, at the age of 28 uncovered 8th century B.C. artifacts from the city of Timna, in southern Arabia, that had once been located along the ancient trade routes where no western archaeologist had ever before been.
Timna in Yemen along the Frankincense Trail through which Lehi passed, and Salalah, Lehi’s Bountiful

He eventually had to flee the Zaydi Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen under gunfire “across a desert inhabited by hostile tribes,” which was the risk of archaeology in Southern Arabia in the 1950s. In the last century B.C., Southern Arabia was the center of the immensely popular and very expensive incense trade that made the people of the region quite prosperous, specifically three successive civilizations, the Minean, Sabaean and Himyaarite, who all depended on the resin that emitted a fragrance when burnt, and was popular across the ancient world for use in religious ceremonies and for masking other smells.
    Today Phillips is known, according to Max Kutner of the Smithsonian, and a staff writer for Newsweek, as “the archaeologist who started archaeology in the Arabian Peninsula, opening the door for all archaeologists who came after him.”
    Beyond the port of Aden in Arabia stretched the little-travelled hinterland of the British colony Yemen, a land of desert tribes and potential petroleum wealth, long before the area became a separate country. This ancient, formerly fertile land once called Saba (Ramlat al-Sab'atayn, known to medieval Arab geographers as Ṣayhad, or Sheba in Hebrew)—the oldest and most important of the South Arabian kingdoms—was the area of the famed Queen of Sheba (Unnamed in the Bible, but called Makeda in Ethiopian tradition).
    The large and prosperous kingdom of Saba' (Sheba), founded in the 10th century BC and ruled by Bilqis, the queen of Sheba, among others, was known for its efficient farming and extensive irrigation system built around a large dam constructed at Ma'rib, about 75 miles east of present-day Sanaa in Yemen. Farther south and east, in the region that would later become South Yemen, were located the Qataban and Hadhramaut kingdoms, which also participated in the incense trade. The last of the great pre-Islamic kingdoms was that of Himyar, which lasted from about the 1st century BC until the 500s AD. At their heights, the Sabaean and Himyarite kingdoms encompassed most of historic Yemen.
The ancient dam at Sheba, built in the 1500 B.C. with cut and dressed blocks laid to their ancient height without mortar

Here, it might be of interest to know, the ancient stone buildings are like those of Cuzco, being built of cut stone and put together without mortar. Wendell Philips reported that he found an irrigation system and parts of the famous giant dam at Sheba that were still standing where both were built of huge stone perfectly cut and put together. According to the famous adventurer, “We saw no trace of mortar of any kind, yet we looked at portions of the wall that were more than fifty feet high, standing as they had when Sheba’s great artisans built them (Qataban and Sheba: Exploring the Ancient Kingdoms on the Biblical Spice Routes of Arabia, Harcourt, Brace & Co, 1955, p222).
    According to Dick Parry (Engineering the Ancient World, History Press, Gloucestershire, 2013), “Masonary walls up to 26-feet high formed part of the southern abutment an extended for 197-feet along the channel margins with masonry work of the highest quality and carefully cut and fitted blocks held together without mortar, that lasted for over one thousand years before failing in 575 A.D.”
    Also, Thomas J. Abercrombie, an adventurer who had visited all seven continents and seemed to have seen nearly everything on them, from the Empty Quarter of Saudi Arabia to the megaliths of Easter Island, and from the sands of the Sahara to the windswept plains of Antarctica, he excitedly remarked about the construction of the Arsh Balqis (Bar’am) 10th century B.C. temple at Ma’rib in Sheba that revealed “beautifully cut limestone blocks put together without mortar” (Behind the Veil of Troubled Yemen, National Geographic Magazine, March 1, 1964, p409).
Charles M. Doughty on his Arab caravan disguised as a Bedouin nomad

Also from Charles Montagu Doughty, British explorer, adventurer and author of Travels in Arabia Deserta, who traveled on the Haj road disguised as an Arab in a large caravan in Arabia from 1876 to 1878, “Among the most ancient Arabian remains are huge erect stones…and buildings composed of huge Cyclopean blocks” that were, according to Doughty “built of unhewn stone without mortar of about the height of a man” (Charles M. Doughty, “Travels in North-western Arabia and Nejd,” Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society and Monthly Record of Geography, Vol VI, Edward Stanford, William Clowes and Sons, London, 1884, p392)
    This Arabian area, of course, is the land that Nephi mentioned when he stated: “And we did sojourn for the space of many years, yea, even eight years in the wilderness” (1 Nephi 17:4) as strangers in a strange land of which none of them had ever before seen. It was a hard and strange land, which gives even more credence to their reaction when they came over the mountains and down into the Salalah Plain along the coast of the ocean they called Irreantum in the country they called Bountiful.
    There eventual settlement area of Cuzco and the original so-called “county” land of Nephi, was bordered on the north by the Cordillera Vilcabamba; on the east by the Cordillera Carabaya where the Vilcañota mountains run within the borders parallel to the Carabaya River; a mountain knot in the south called the Vilcañota knudo; with the west boundary the Apurimac (“Great Speaker”) river gorge—a deeply-carved river as much as 80-feet deep in a gorge 245-feet wide that can be heard for many miles. Also along the mountains in the south lies the LaRaya pass, through which access to the Cuzco Valley is reached along the Collasuyu Road (a Quechua name meaning colla"high plain," and suyu, meaning "region," with the road through this area being paved and bound ono both sides by a wall). 
    Within these “county” limits was the city of Nephi, later called Lehi-Nephi by the Lamanites to signify their victory over the Nephites once Mosiah left (on his way to Zarahemla), and also the evidently temporary city of Shemlon into which the Lamanites moved to vacate Nephi and Shilom for Zeniff and the Nephites.
    The actual city of Nephi was located to the far north of this land along the northern rim of the valley, where Shilom was also located. Above these two cities, on the hill (or mountain) looming over them, is where Ammon and his friends spent the night after reaching the valley: “And when they had wandered forty days they came to a hill, which is north of the land of Shilom, and there they pitched their tents” (Mosiah 7:5). And in the morning, “Ammon took three of his brethren, and their names were Amaleki, Helem, and Hem, and they went down into the land of Nephi” (Mosiah 7:6), where they approached the king who was with his guards without the gate of the city, “And behold, they met the Nephite king of the people who were in the land of Nephi, and in the land of Shilom; and they were surrounded by the king's guard, and were taken, and were bound, and were committed to prison” (Mosiah 7:7).
Hill above Shilom where Ammon and his brethren spent the night before going on down into the land of Nephi to meet the king

Thus, below the hill where Ammon and his brethren spent the night, was the city of Shilom and the city of Nephi, both evidently butting up into the rim of the hill or hills in the north of the valley. This is obviously evidenced in Cuzco, where the most ancient buildings are located in this northern area of the valley.

Saturday, September 23, 2017

The Fortress Complex of Sacsayhuamán

One of the most remarkable edifices ever built by man is found along an artificially levelled mountaintop at 11,663-feet, overlooking a valley and the city of Cuzco in southcentral Peru. It originally was an overall fortress, called the “House of the Sun,” with an adjacent complex referred to as the “Temple of the Sun.” 
      When the Spanish invaders first saw the complex, they considered it superior to the Seven Wonders of the World then known. The ruins of the massive fortress are located where today the San Cristobál and Cuzco districts meet (both districts are part of the Cuzco Province).
Lying on the northern outskirts of the city of Cusco, the walled complex of Sacsayhuamán consists of a fortress that has multiple, layered walls, each located behind another, the rear ones higher than the frontal ones. The more one advances inwards, one has to climb higher, meeting more walls of large dry stone with boulders carefully cut to fit together tightly without mortar.  The stones used in the construction of the terraces weigh up to 200 tons, and are among the largest used in any building in prehispanic America, and unlike any other, display a precision of fitting that is unmatched in the entire Western Hemisphere.
    The fortress itself was built on the side of a hill along the rise toward the mountain top, taking full advantage of the altitude changes, and obviously meant for defense and protection. It has seen major battles, including during the Spanish invasion, and during the siege in which Juán Pizarro, the smaller brother of Francisco Pizarro was fatally wounded and died the next day.
    It should be noted that this immense fortress was put together with the usage of huge stone blocks. Modern archaeologists have no idea exactly who built Sacsayhuamán, when it was built, and most importantly, how it was built. Where the famed Machu Picchu is admired for its great location and splendid views, Sacsayhuamán is readily admired for the remarkable architectural engineering skills that were needed for its creation.
These outer three zig-zag walls are perfect for defense at 1500-feet long and 54 feet wide. Not only are they on the side of a hill, forcing an invader to continually climb upward, there is no singular path through these walls. The openings are offset a considerable distance, and all paths through the labyrinth are continually exposed to defending forces from above

When the Spanish asked the defeated Inca who built the magnificent walls and buildings, they replied that they had always been there, long before the Inca came, and had been built by ancient giants. While historians and anthropologists translate that to mean the Inca believed that giant men lived in Cuzco in the past, they simply are unaware of the fact that in biblical lore, “giants” were often those of ancient stature of righteousness and God-like principles.
    At its height, Garcilaso de la Vega (Gómez Suárez de Figueroa), known as El Inca, and born in Cuzco, in the Spanish Empire’s Viceroyalty of Peru, one of the most famous initial chroniclers of the Andean people, their history and customs, tells us that the ancient fortress was capable of housing 5,000 warriors, and had numerous subterranean rooms filled with weapons and supplies. Today, of course, the complex is in ruins, but we know from chronicles and the word-of-mouth from local Quechuans that it was at one time bigger, higher and even had towers. In fact, modern architectural evaluation and Specialists affirm that at one time the outside walls were approximately ten feet higher than today.
To gain entrance from the open fields below, there is one opening, a narrow stepped-up blind where the invader has to (yellow arrow) climb and then turn into a blind opening area that is easily blocked by a lowered boulder (like a draw bridge) and armed guards

While the Inca believed the walls were impassable, they did not count on nor understand the Spanish use of ladders and ramps that negated the impregnable appearance of the fortress.
    During a siege, the fortress had suffered tremendously due to Spanish attack, led by Francisco Pizarro. And the upper parts of the fort contained smaller stones, which were easily demolished and hauled away, to be used for the construction of colonial buildings. The larger stones were too heavy, of course, to be moved and the Spaniards simply left them in their original shape and positions.
    Some of these ancient stones are gigantic, even the size of a truck. Nobody, not even the Inca, knew how they were moved into place. Many of these stones weigh over 50 ton—about the size of a modern Army M-1 Abrams Tank. Even with modern cranes, it would be a very difficult task to move such stones! And when we consider that the largest stone is 120 ton, for man to manage to lift and place in perfect alignment—one can only imagine lifting that weight in the middle ages, let alone in B.C. times.
One stone, about 18 feet high and 12 feet wide, weighing over 100-ton, dwarfs the people around it

The tallest stone is claimed to be 28 feet high and while regularly estimated to weigh over 120 tons, more weightier estimates place the largest stones at 300 tons (Felix R. Paturi, Prehistoric Heritage, Purnell & Sons , 1979); 361 tons (Michael M. Alouf, History of Baalbek, Book Tree Pub., 1999); and even 440 tons (D. Zink, The Ancient Stones Speak, Musson Book Co., 1979).
    The cutting of these hard rocks is yet another mystery that so far no-one has managed to come up with any plausible answer as to how it was done. In attempting to understand the construction of Sacsayhuamán we are no more knowledgeable that we are in understanding how the giant Egyptian Pyramids were built.
    In addition, one block on the outer walls has faces cut to fit perfectly with 12 other blocks, while some blocks were cut with as many as 36 sides. All the blocks were fitted together so precisely that a thickness gauge could not be inserted between them.
Two images showing the numerous cuts in these huge boulders that required exact cuts and placement of joining stones where no mortar was used. Such exactness can barely be achieved today

It was Garcilaso de la Vega, whose father was the Spanish captain and conquistador Sebastián Garcilaso de la Vega y Vargas and mother an Incan princess, Palla Chimpu Ocllo (daughter of Túpac Huallpa and granddaughter of Inca Tupac Yupanqui), who was baptized after the fall of Cuzco as Isabel Suarez Chimpu Ocllo, a chronicler who wrote of Sacsayhuamán: “This fortress surpasses the constructions known as the seven wonders of the world. For in the case of a long broad wall like that of Babylon, or the colossus of Rhodes, or the pyramids of Egypt, or the other monuments, one can see clearly how they were executed. They did it by summoning an immense body of workers and accumulating more and more material day by day and year by year. They overcame all difficulties by employing human effort over a long period. But it is indeed beyond the power of imagination to understand now these Indians, unacquainted with devices, engines, and implements, could have cut, dressed, raised, and lowered great rocks, more like lumps of hills than building stones, and set them so exactly in their places. For this reason, and because the Indians were so familiar with demons, the work is attributed to enchantment.”
    Some Spanish priests and chronicle-writers, among whom was Pedro Cieza de León, a cousin to Francisco Pizarro’s secretary and recorder, as well as Bernabe Cobo, Sarmiento de Gamboa, and Pedro Pizarro wrote extensively of Sacsayhuamán having been built by demons and evil spirits—they found it impossible to believe it had been built by mere men, and especially could not grasp any possibility that it had been done by the Inca whom they had defeated so easily considering the numbers arraigned against them, and who lacked so much of the normal and fundamental requirements, like not having the wheel nor a written language. It is interesting that so many people today believe Sacsayhuamán and so much else in Peru was built by the Inca when no one at the time believed that possible. And the Inca themselves told the Spaniards all of it had been built by ancients.
   One can only wonder what ancients that might have been. When Nephi wrote that the Lord taught him how to build a ship, "not after the manner of men," and "showed unto me many great things," and Nephi later "taught his people how to build buildings, and work in all manner of wood, and iron, and of copper, and of brass and of steel..." perhaps we have that answer that has escaped archaeologists and anthropologists for centuries.

Friday, September 22, 2017

The Tower King Noah Built

After the Nephites, under Mosiah the First discovered Zarahemla, several of these Nephites or their sons, traveled back into Lamanite lands to reclaim their birthright in the City of Nephi under Zeniff, who became the first king of this Nephite enclave. After settling down and renovating the buildings, walls, and making the cities of Nephi and Shilom and land round about worth living in again (Mosiah 9:8), Zeniff, a righteous leader, passed on, appointing his son, Noah, to be the next king.
Unfortunately, Noah, was an extremely wicked man and heavily taxed his people, spending the money on extravagances and wickedness. Under his leadership, the Nephites were full of idolatry and indulgences and Noah a wicked monarch best known for his burning the prophet Abinadi at the stake, eliminating Zeniff’s priests and replacing them with his own evil priests, and subverting the laws. During his time, he presided over a wicked kingdom guided by false priests, and as the scriptures proclaim, “Noah did not walk in the ways of his father,” and he took many wives and concubines, set his heart upon wealth and spent his time in riotous living.
    Noah tried to create the physical signs of civilization. With the people’s taxes, i.e., one-fifth of all they possessed, he “built many elegant and spacious buildings; and he ornamented them with fine works of wood, and of all manner of precious things. He didn’t skimp on the palace or the temple, either, and like many kings and government leaders in other ages of mankind, he used impressive monuments and elegant facades to persuade the people that they were a wealthy and mighty kingdom. It likely was also meant to have an impact on the lazy, non-productive Lamanites now living nearby in Shemlon (an area today considered to be Chanapata).
    In one instance, no doubt to protect himself and his people from any surprise attack from the nearby Lamanites, Noah had a large tower built next to the temple on a hill overlooking the valley. In the prophet Alma’s descriptive words: “Noah built a tower near the temple, yea a very high tower, even so high that he could stand upon the top thereof and overlook the land of Shilom, and also the land of Shemlon, which was possessed by the Lamanties; and he could even look over all the land round about” (Mosiah 11:12).
This tower was so high that from its top one could see into the surrounding valleys, including Shemlon, the land of the Lamanites, no doubt where those Lamanites and the king went after vacating the city of Nephi when Zeniff and the Nephites returned. Obviously, it was not far away since it could be seen clearly from the tower on top of the hill Noah constructed. From this tower, Noah could see Lamanite soldiers amassing for an attack in time to alert the people to man their defenses. In order for this tower to be high enough to spy into the “lands round about,” it would not have been made of flimsy wood, but sturdy stone with steps that probably circled the interior and allowed for quick access to the upper floor where lookouts could be stationed. However, it seems likely that Noah allowed the tower to go unmanned much of the time for little is said about it until one fateful moment.
This is seen in one event, when king Noah, under attack by his own people, and being chased at sword point by an officer of his own guard named Gideon, ran in and “got upon the tower which was near the temple, and Gideon pursued after him and was about to get upon the tower to slay the king, and the king cast his eyes round about towards the Lamanite land of Shemlon, and behold, the army of the Lamanites were within the borders of the land. And now the king cried out in the anguish of his soul, saying: Gideon, spare me, for the Lamanites are upon us, and they will destroy us; yea, they will destroy my people” (Mosiah 19:5-7).
    Centuries later, when Francisco Pizarro led his conquering Spaniards into the land of Cuzco in Peru, South America, they were startled to find such opulence, magnificent construction, and marvelous buildings, many of the conquistadores and chroniclers claimed rivaled those of Seville and even Rome. They saw, on a hill overlooking the city, three towers next to a large temple and fortified complex. The main tower was high enough to overlook the entire land “round about” and stood predominantly at the far end of the Valley.
Of this fortress, the famous Quechuan-Spanish chronicle writer, Garcilaso de la Vega once wrote: “This fortress surpasses the constructions known as the seven wonders of the world. For in the case of a long broad wall like that of Babylon, or the colossus of Rhodes, or the pyramids of Egypt, or the other monuments, one can see clearly how they were executed. They did it by summoning an immense body of workers and accumulating more and more material day by day and year by year. They overcame all difficulties by employing human effort over a long period. But it is indeed beyond the power of imagination to understand how these Indians, unacquainted with devices, engines, and implements, could have cut, dressed, raised, and lowered great rocks, more like lumps of hills than building stones, and set them so exactly in their places. For this reason, and because the Indians were so familiar with demons, the work is attributed to enchantment."
    He was not the only early chronicler that lauded the building capabilities of the early Peruvians, and in trying to find out who had built the numerous stone edifices in the region, the Incas told the Spaniards that the “Ancient Ones” had done so long before the Inca came to power.
Not discovered until 1934, when archaeologists began digging in the rubble surrounding the area where the towers once stood, did they find the exact spot where Garcilaso (left) claimed the towers had stood and began piecing together the dimensions and ancient knowledge of the towers. They found in the center of this area next to the temple, the very high cylindrical-shaped main tower that had been erected in the center, which they called “Tower of Cahuide,” after the last Inca who died leaping from it during a failed rebellion. Originally, it was called Muyuc Marca (Muyuqmarka), meaning “round precinct.” It should be noted, however, that this is the name of the area or location, not the name of the actual tower, though originally, it could have been both, for later, when the other two towers were built, they were given separate names, but those names did not relate to the area, only Muyuc Marca.
    The tower itself was a round building with an open central court which had a flowing fountain. The overall tower stood 65-feet high and 12 feet around at the base and narrowing to 9 ½ feet at the top, with four superimposed floors, and a conic or cone-shaped ceiling—its amazing construction generated the admiration of several early chroniclers. The view from the top, according to Garcilaso was outstanding, and one could see over all the adjoining valleys. The tower itself was painted in bright colors and had a thatched roof. Like most of king Noah’s enterprises, it was not just built for function, but for its impressive dimensions and manner of construction, meant to impress all who saw it.
A web-like pattern of 34 lines, which intersect at the center, whose circular stone walls connected by a series of radial walls made up the foundation base, which is all that is visible today and easily observed by any visitor, as well as large enough to be seen by satellite. There is also a pattern of concentric circles that corresponded to the location of the circular walls.
    It was at Muyu Marca where the strongest indigenous resistance occurred against the Spanish conquerors during the rebellion of Manco Inca in 1536. Titu Cusi Huallpa (also called Cahuide), when the cause of rebellion was obviously lost, jumped from Muyu Marca's highest point to avoid being captured by his enemies. After the rebellion was suppressed and defeated, the Spanish tore down the tower and all that is left is the web-like pattern of foundation stones.
Garcilaso wrote that there were three towers at Muyucmarca, at the top of the walls. These towers were built at equal distance from each other, forming a triangle. The main tower was erected in the center and it was a cylindrical-shaped one—larger and far more impressive than the other two, which were called Paucar Marca and Sallac Marca (or Sallaqmarca, sometimes Sallaq Marka), and both had rectangular-shaped bases.
    Historians are unaware of why the main tower was round and the other two rectangular, however, it seems understandable that the first and larger tower was built by Noah as the scriptural record tells us, and meant to impress, as indicated in the statement that he: “built many elegant and spacious buildings; and he ornamented them with fine work of wood, and of all manner of precious things, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of brass, and of ziff, and of copper” (Mosiah 9:8). The fact that it also served an important purpose for an early warning station also suggests its rounded shape, what is considered today an inferior building technique since round towers are considered less stable, though providing a better, and unobstructed, view and why the lesser two towers were built rectangular. However, its shape also must have been meant to impress, since the Spanish found its design and construction so remarkable they lavished extensive praise on it upon seeing the tower. Obviously, the other two must have been added later, even by later generations.
    It is interesting that no such tower, with a view of adjoining lands, has ever been found among the numerous constructions in Mesoamerica, and certainly not in North America.

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Pearls in the Land of Promise

In the scriptural record it is written by the Disciple Nephi and abridged by Mormon, that the people “had become exceeding rich and were lifted up in pride, such as the wearing of costly apparel and all manner of fine pearls” (4 Nephi 1: 24). This is the only mention of pearls in the entire scriptural record, though often the term “precious things” is used (Mosiah 11:8; Alma 1:29; Helaman 12:2; 3 Nephi 6:2; Ether 9:17). It is interesting to note that, true to the typical colors of the Mesoamericanist, the finding of pearls in the Americas has been attributed to Mesoamerica to tie in the early Jaredite and Nephite people. 
     Using Michael D. Coe and Alfonso Caso’s work (Handbook of Middle Americans 3:697, 915), Miller and Roper make a strong case for Mesoamerica being the center of the excellent pearls found in the Americas and sent to Spain under “Book of Mormon Lands,” #5, “Pearls,” by stating that the pearls “were known to be abundant off the coast of southern Mexico and were prized by Mesoamerican peoples from Pre-classic times.”
Green Arrow: Northern Mexico; White Arrow: La Paz, Baja California Sur; Red Arrow: Southern Mexico; Yellow Arrow: Peru

However, like all Mesoamericanists, they state only that part of the facts that support their point of view. In truth, according to Elizabeth Gackstetter Nichols (professor of Spanish and chair of the Department of Languages at Drury University and considered an expert in Venezuelan literature and culture) and Kimberly J. Morse (professor of history at Washburn University, and another expert in Venezuelan history), “New World Pearls were first found in 1499 in Venezuela” (Venezuela, Greenwood, 2010, pp26-27).
    The two biggest areas of interest to the Spaniards as they landed along the northern coast of Venezuela in 1498 was the abundance of pearls, and indigenous slaves for shipment to Hispaniola and Cuba. It is also important to note that “the conquest of indigenous empires in Mexico and Peru made those two areas the focal points of the Spanish empire in the Americas” (p28); however, when the Venezuelan pearl fisheries yield fell off in 1540, the Spaniards divided all of its American territories into two large administrative units, the Viceroyalty of New Spain (which included what is now the U.S. southwest) and the Viceroyalty of Peru, and shifted their pearl attention toward Peruvian coastal waters and the Gulf of California (Elizabeth G. Nichols and Kimberly J. Morse, Venezuela, ABC-CLIO, Oxford, England, 2010, p29).
While pearl-bearing oysters and other clams occur in both fresh and salt waters the world over, the most precious (“fine”) pearls come from tropical to sub-tropical seas. They are known to be abundant off the coasts of northern and southern Mexico, especially the Sea of Cortez (Gulf of California) along the coast of Baja, and have been prized by indigenous Americans for millennia, and are some of the world's rarest gems. While no precious pearls have been reported from coastal or fresh waters of the northeastern United States, the coastal waters of Peru have produced beautiful pearls as long as Mexico, and were discovered there around the same time.
    As for the fabulous pearl quality found in these two areas, the “Panamic Black-Lipped Pearl Oyster” (Pinctada mazatlanica) and the ‘Rainbow-Lipped Pearl Oyster” (Pteria sterna), both of which are quite capable of producing pearls in a wide array of colors, from an opalescent white, golden-bronze, grays, greens and blues, pinkish-violet, and all the way to jet black.
In fact, by the 16th Century, the "black pearls" of the Gulf of California had earned the title of "Queen of Gems, Gem of Queens," since so many of them adorned the crowns of European Kings and Queens, as well as their clothing, necks, hands and ears—and some Pearl Specialists, like C. Denis George of Australia, and Sohei Shirai of Japan, consider these Mexico to Peru pearls to be Superior than other varieties of pearls, due in no small part to their beautiful luster and unique overtones. It should also be noted that at the time of the Spanish, the city of La Paz, in Lower California, became the black pearl center of the world—however, this is not Mesoamerica! In fact, it is approximately 1400-1500 miles north of the area of Guatemala and the claimed area of the Mesoamerican Nephites.
    Not only were coastal (salt water) pearls found all along the Peruvian coast of a specially high quality, matching those of Mexico and the Sea of Cortez, but fresh water pearls were also found. In addition, conch pearls from the queen conch, S. gigas, though rare, have been collectors' items from since Victorian times. These conch pearls occur in a range of hues, including white, brown and orange, with many intermediate shades, but pink is the color most associated with the conch pearl, such that these pearls are sometimes referred to simply as "pink pearls.” 
    In some gemological texts, non-nacreous gastropod pearls used to be referred to as "calcareous concretions" because they were "porcellaneous" (shiny and ceramic-like in appearance), rather than "nacreous" (with a pearly lustre), sometimes known as "orient." Today the term "pearl"—or, where appropriate, the more descriptive term "non-nacreous pearl"—is used when referring to such items (CIBJO “Pearl Book”. GIA Gems and Gemology Magazine News), and under Federal Trade Commission rules, various mollusc pearls may be referred to as "pearls" without qualification, thus they have always been considered pearls of a very high quality.
The value of pearls has always been extremely high. Before the creation of cultured pearls in the early 1900s, natural pearls were so rare and expensive that they were reserved almost exclusively for the noble and very rich. A jewelry item that today's working woman might take for granted, a 16-inch strand of perhaps 50 pearls, often costs between $500 and $5,000.
    At the height of the Roman Empire, when pearl fever reached its peak, the historian Suetonius wrote that the Roman general Vitellius (left) financed an entire military campaign by selling just one of his mother's pearl earrings. In fact, the Egyptians and later the Romans prized pearls above all other gems. Pliny, the world’s first gemologist, writes in his famous Natural History that the two pearls were worth an estimated 60 million sestarces, about $9,375,000 with silver at $5 an ounce.
    The Arabs, perhaps, have shown the greatest love for pearls, with the depth of their affection enshrined in the Koran, especially within its description of Paradise, which reads: "The stones are pearls and jacinths; the fruits of the trees are pearls and emeralds; and each person admitted to the delights of the celestial kingdom is provided with a tent of pearls, jacinths, and emeralds; is crowned with pearls of incomparable luster, and is attended by beautiful maidens resembling hidden pearls."
    Although non-nacreous, the Peruvian surface of fine conch pearls has a unique and attractive appearance of its own. The microstructure of conch pearls comprises partly aligned bundles of microcrystalline fibres that create a shimmering, slightly iridescent effect known as "flame structure." The effect is a form of chatoyance, caused by the interaction of light rays with the microcrystals in the pearl's surface, and it somewhat resembles Moire silk.
    Obviously, then, not only were pearls a prized gem anciently among the Nephites, it is one of the natural items to be found in the land of Promise. It is interesting that in Mesoamerica, when you separate that land from the rest of Mexico, the famed pearl of the Mexican coasts is hardly found in Mesoamerica at all.
    It should also be noted that pearls were the New World's biggest export until the full development of gold and silver mines took place in Mexico and Peru. As a matter of fact, the value of the pearls imported to Spain from Mexico and Peru exceeded that of all other exports combined. For this reason, in Europe, the Americas became known as "the lands where pearls come hither."
    And, most importantly, the gold and silver mines in Mexico were, for the most part, in northern Mexico, not within the area of Mesoamerica! Out of the top 13 gold and silver mines in 2011, only two were in the very northern reaches of Mesoamerica (northern Jaredite lands), and not accessible to the Mesoamerican Nephites until the last century B.C.
It should also be noted that when the Spanish arrived, they built the third colonial church a block and a half southwest of the famed Inca center, the Plaza de Armas in Cuzco, not far from the Casa Garcilaso de la Vega and the gravesite of Gonzalo Pizarro, half brother to Francisco Pizarro, between 1657 and 1680. The 51-inch tall monstrance (a vessel in which the consecrated Host is exposed to receive the veneration of the faithful), and weights 49 pounds, is encrusted with one thousand five hundred eighteen diamonds and fine gems, sixteen hundred pearls, one amethyst, one topaz, three emeralds, many dozens of rubies and some other precious stones, including the world’s second largest pearl and is shaped like a siren.
    It appears, then, that the pearls mentioned in the scriptural record were the ones found in Peru, since that is an area where the Nephites are claimed to have been whereas, in Mesoamerica, there were no pearl areas for the ones known to have existed were not within the area known as Mesoamerica.

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Why Mormon Gave So Many Geographical Details – Part II

Continuing from the previous post regarding what Mormon meant in Alma 22:32, and why these Mesoamerican theorists simply do not agree with Mormon’s descriptions and, therefore, his location of the Land of Promise. 
    First of all, the purpose of Mormon writing this insert is not only in explanation or description of the Land of Promise relating to where the Nephites and Lamanites were and the lands they occupied, but what separated them and how they were divided in the land. The purpose of his doing so seems clear—he was about to embark on a lengthy description of the wars and interactions between the Nephites and Lamanites (as found in Alma and Helaman) and wanted his future reader, who would not be well acquainted with the land like he was to be able to relate to the information, battles, journeys and missionary efforts that would be involved. After all, it is always easier to picture events in your mind’s eye if you have an understanding of the area, terrain and geography in which they take place, and how one event relates to another.
    Therefore, we need to keep in mind that since much will take place around this land between the narrow neck of land to the north and the narrow strip of wilderness in the south, Mormon gives us a complete rundown on where everyone was and how these different areas related to one another—he was in reality drawing a mental map for us.
The Line between Desolation and Bountiful

First of all, let’s restate the scripture Mormon wrote, and then respond to the questions this scriptural reference elicits:
1. Distance of a day and a half journey—How far is a day and a half journey?
Response: The width of the narrow neck of land is of critical interest to the reader as battles not only take place there, it marked the location of a future treaty that Mormon makes with the Lamanite king, but also is the single piece of land between the Land Southward and the Land Northward. Now since the Nephites made a special effort to keep both defectors and Lamanites out of that area, Mormon shows us the width of it as to how this was done, which also makes more sense to us when we get into the future event when Moroni sends Teancum to head off Morianton’s attempt to reach the neck and pass and obtain egress into the Land Northward.
    Knowing that a future generation, and likely with another language (“No man knows our language”), Mormon is faced with using terminology that will be known to the future reader in relationship to distance. Obviously, whatever the Nephites used for “mile” would not be known to us, so he chose to use a person walking to illustrate the distance.
    So that distance can be figured by us to be the distance an average man would cover walking through wilderness in a day and a half—or about 18 hours. Which, by all reasonable estimates would be between 25 and 30 miles distance as we have detailed in numerous earlier occasions.
In the Book of Mormon time, a Nephite was what we would call today the Common Man

2. For a Nephite—why is Nephite here used and not Lamanite or person?
Response: In trying to tell us a distance, would Mormon have chosen a marathon runner? An athlete? A special dispatch courier? It makes more sense that he would choose a normal person—that could be compared against a future normal person. In this case, he chose a Nephite and not a Lamanite, who in his day the Lamanite would have been used to travel on foot and covering long distances such as the American Plains Indian of the late 1800s in the western U.S. Nor would Mormon have chosen someone on horseback or traveling in some unknown conveyance since a future people might not relate. It would have been a typical man, walking, on a typical trip—a journey. Again, in our day and age, a typical man could cover upwards of 30 miles in a day and a half over rough, uneven ground.
The border between Utah and Nevada is an imaginary line across this open area just west of Ibapah and a little north of the Old Lincoln Highway. There is no marker, no line in the ground, yet it is a line (border) between these two states

3. On the line between the land of Bountiful and the land of Desolation—what is meant by “on the line”? What line?
Response: This is a figurative statement, it is not meant to convey a physical line, or even a line of terrain, such as a canyon, or mountains, or river, etc., though, of course it might have been such, but Mormon’s “line” is here stated as a boundary, like a border, between the Land of Desolation and the Land of Bountiful and within the narrow neck of land.
    “On the line” has reference to movement along that line, boundary or border. In the case of the photo above, this stretch of border between Utah and Nevada runs about 45 miles between the Old Lincoln Highway northward to West Wendover and Interstate 80. In terms of walking in the early frontier days, it would have been stated as “two days and a bit.”
    Thus, the measurement of a day and a half journey would mean along this line, or border, between these two lands (Desolation and Bountiful).
4. From the east to the west sea—what point in the east?
Response: Most theorists try to confuse the issue here by saying Mormon did not say “from the east sea to the west sea,” but said instead “from the east to the west sea.” Now if that was Mormon’s meaning, his overall statement and purpose would be rendered meaningless, since “from the east,” would have no meaning to a future reader. Where in the east? At what point in the east? Some theorists have claimed it must have meant a fort of some type, or a mountain, or some other physical point. However, Mormon is attempting to give his future reader a reference to measure this distance—an ambiguous eastern point negates that attempt.
In an elliptical statement, the word "Sea" is understood since it has been introduced ealier and is not necessary to repeat or state again
Thus, Mormon is simply using what is today called in English, elliptical writing, which is refraining from superfluous writing, and instead writing with economy, i.e., tending to be cryptic, which is grammatically correct only if the necessary information to understand the sentence has been supplied previously or is clear from the context of the sentence. So if we go back to Mormon’s initial intro into his inserted statement, it reads: “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…”
    As we see, in two instances, in his first statement of his insertion (Alma 22:27), Mormon informs us that he is talking about land between the two seas, i.e., the Sea East and the Sea West. Consequently, in his later statement (Alma 22:32), he condenses this to read simply “from the east to the west sea,” having already introduced his meaning as “from the east sea to the west sea.”
    So the distance of the narrow neck of land, along a line (border) between Desolation and Bountiful, was the distance of a day and a half journey, or about 25 to 30 miles.
5. Thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water—nearly surrounded? What does that mean?
Response: First of all, “surrounded” means “encircle,” “encompassed,” “inclosed,” “confined on all sides,” and “nearly surrounded by water” means a piece of land nearly surrounded by water and attache3d to a larger area of land or the mainland by an isthmus.” And “nearly” means “almost,” “closely,” “at no great distance,” “within a little.”
    Thus, the Land Southward was surrounded by water except for a little area. And in the following words, Mormon tells us what kept that land from being entirely surrounded.
An isthmus can be any size, so long as it is narrower than the two bodies of land it connects; however, a narrow neck is by definition, "narrow" and a small neck of land between two other tracts of land (the word Isthmus is never mentioned in the scriptural record)
6. There being a small neck of land—what is a “neck of land”? What is “small?
Response: Thus, there was a small neck of land that kept the Land Southward from being completely surrounded by water. A small neck of land is defined as “a narrow tract of land connecting two larger tracts.” Mormon tells us that tract of land, or small neck, was between the Land Northward and the Land Southward.
7. Between the land northward and the land southward”—what is meant by “between”?
Response: Between means “from one another; passing from one to another,” “area between and connecting two points.”
    Thus, we find that the “small neck” or “narrow neck” was a small and narrow tract of land between and connecting two larger tracts of land, i.e., connecting the Land Southward to the Land Northward. Not only did Mormon tell us that this neck of land was both small (Alma 22:32) and narrow (Alma 63:5), but that it was the width that a Nephite could cross in about a day and a half, while walking along on a normal journey. He also told us it was the only point of connection between the Land Northward and the Land Southward.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Why Mormon Gave So Many Geographical Details – Part I

How often do we stop and ponder the scriptures, rather than simply read them like a novel, often trying to get so many verses or chapters read at one time? How often do we read something we have read many times before and suddenly realize it says something we had not before realized? Sometimes this is because we were not looking for such information previously, sometimes because we were not ready for it then, and sometimes because we were so interested in other matters that the information did not penetrate. And sometimes it is because we simply do not know how to dig deeper into the meaning of something on our own without outside help or direction.
A day and a half journey for a Nephite

Take a simple meaning of a word or phrase where its meaning at first escapes our more detailed understanding. As an example: “And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line between the land Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward” (Alma 22:32).
    By way of discussion, there are several questions that this single statement should elicit to the interested reader:
1. Distance of a day and a half journey
    (How far is a day and a half journey?)
2. For a Nephite
    (Why is "Nephite" here used and not "Lamanite" or "person"?)
3. On the line between the land of Bountiful and the land of Desolation
    (What is meant by “on the line”? What line?)
4. From the east to the west sea
    (What point in the east?)
5. Thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water
    (Nearly surrounded? What does that mean?)
6. There being a small neck of land
    (What is a “neck of land”? What is “small?)
7. Between the land northward and the land southward”
    (What is meant by “between”?)
At this point, one might ask, “why be concerned with such details?” “Is it important?” “If so, why?”
To answer these last questions, we need to know the answer to another question: “why did Mormon insert this 568 word aside into the narrative of Ammon, Aaron and their brethren doing missionary work among the Lamanites?”
    Sorenson, himself, answers that question when he stated that it was “The nearest thing to a systematic explanation of Mormon’s geographical picture…that summarized major features of the land southward” (Mormon’s Map, Neal A. Maxwell Institute, Provo UT, 2000, p9). Nor can we consider that this statement found in Mormon’s insertion in Alma 22:27-34 is incomplete or not sufficient, for even Sorenson agrees that Mormon considered it complete, since “he must have considered that treatment full and clear enough for his purposes, because he never returned to the topic.”
    It is interesting to know that, according to Randall P. Spackman, both John L. Sorenson (637-725 passages) and John E. Clark (318 passages), both dedicated Mesoamericanist theorists, used “upwards of 1000 passages of potential geographic significance to develop an internal reconstruction of the geography of the Book of Mormon” (Interpreting Book of Mormon Geography, FARMS Review 15, no 1, 2003, p29). Evidently, “they mapped out the general lay of the land, and the relationship between different lands and cities without tying it to any real-world location.”
Sorenson’s Narrow Neck of Land is hardly seen on a map, let alone what would be observable to someone standing along either shore during Nephite times

Yet, they both Sorenson and Clark adhere to the narrow neck of land, from sea to sea, being over 125 miles wide (as much as 144 miles), even though Mormon states quite clearly that this line between the seas can be covered in a day and a half by a Nephite.
    One can only wonder how those two concepts can be justified, not that Sorenson doesn’t spend a lot of time trying to do so, talking about special Indian warriors, the run of Phidippides from Marathon to Athens following the Greek defeat of the Persian Army in 490 B.C., and a number of other unrelated events and possibilities. However, despite several inconsistencies in Sorenson’s map, not alone the directions, but also the extensive width of his narrow neck and the impossibility that anyone in Nephite times could have perceived that it was a “narrow neck” from land-based observation, Sorenson glibly states (An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Deseret Book, Salt Lake City, 1985, p36):
“The distance indicated by the Book of Mormon across the land from Ammonihah to Moroni on the east coast is just about the distance across most of Chiapas and Tabasco states around 150 miles. The topography also matches. The mountainous band of wilderness separating highland Guatemala from central Chiapas is in the right place to be the “narrow strip of wilderness” of the Nephites. More detail is not necessary at this point.”
    At this point it might also be stated that the interesting thing about the Book of Mormon is how much actual detail that exists, though most readers feel there should have been a lot more. Unfortunately, many readers try to breeze through its reading in order to accomplish a goal or reading requirement, missing many points of both interest and importance along the way. As Royal Skousen stated (Analysis of Textual Variants of the book of Mormon, Six-Volume Set, Interpreter Foundation, 2017), “Textual accuracy is crucial when trying to determine the specifics of Book of Mormon geography.”
    In addition, upon careful inspection, Grant Hardy, a professor of history and Religious Studies and Director of the Humanities Program at the University of North Carolina at Asheville, states in his book (Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide, Oxford University Press, New York, 2010, pp6–7), “It requires considerable patience to work out all the details of chronology, geography, genealogy, and source records, but the Book of Mormon is remarkably consistent on all of this.” Hardy, who studied Ancient Greek at BYU before obtaining his doctorate at Yale, also stated: “The complexity is such that one would assume the author worked from charts and maps,” though none such are indicated by Mormon nor by the translator, Joseph Smith.
    As V. Garth Norman, archaeologist and President of the Ancient America Foundation (AAF), and one who worked as a research associate with the BYU-New World Archaeological Foundation’s Izapa, Mexico project noted, “Mormon gave very specific geographic details at times …that could have no other purpose than to paint the landscape where these events occurred” (Book of Mormon - Mesoamerican Historic Geography, Ancient America Foundation, American Fork, Utah, 2006, pix).
The point of all of this is that all these theorists talk about being specific, exact, using textual accuracy, and considerable patience to work out that accuracy, etc. Yet, they all place the Land of Promise in an area inconsistent with the very scriptures they use and quote and pay little attention to Mormon’s explanations though they claim to be using his words as a guide.
    So let us return to Mormon’s statement, made for clarification of the geographical setting of the Nephite and Lamanite lands and the seven questions or points made in his one statement in Alma 22:32)
(See the next post, “Why Mormon Gave So Many Geographical Details – Part II,” to see what Mormon meant and why these Mesoamerican theorists simply do not agree with Mormon’s descriptions and, therefore, his location of the Land of Promise)

Monday, September 18, 2017

The Location and Nature of the Narrow Pass

In an article by Ted Dee Stoddard, Professor Emeritusof Management Communication at BYU, where he taught business writing throughout his academic career, he describes the location and nature of the Narrow Pass (or Passage) that Mormon describes on four different occasions (Alma 50:34; 52:9; Mormon 2:3; 3:5). In the first two of these, Mormon uses the term “Narrow Pass,” and in the last two, he uses the term “Narrow Pass,” and “Narrow Passage,” to describe the same place, i.e., the southern terminus of the land the Lamanites granted to the Nephites in the treaty enacted in 350 A.D., when their lands were divided, with the Lamanites taking all the Land Southward and the Nephites taking the Land Northward.
In 350 A.D. Mormon and the Lamanite King entered into a Treaty where their lands were separated by the narrow neck, with the Nephites obtaining the land northward and the Lamanites the land southward of this narrow neck
  
The dividing line or dividing point of these lands was the narrow neck of land, and the Pass that cut through it, providing egress between the two lands or major land masses of the Land of Promise.
    We also should understand that these four statements show that the narrow pass or passage provided a Nephite who was in the Land Northward a way of traveling into the Land Southward (Mormon 2:29; 3:5. Conversely, if a Nephite was in the Land Southward, the narrow pass led into the Land Northward (Alma 50:34; 52:9). It was here that Mormon “did place our armies, that we might stop the armies of the Lamanites, that they might not get possession of any of our lands; therefore we did fortify against them with all our force” (Mormon 3:6).
    Eleven years after this treaty, in 361 A.D., “the Lamanites did come down to the city of Desolation to battle against us; and it came to pass that in that year we did beat them, insomuch that they did return to their own lands again” (Mormon 3:7). The next year the Lamanites came down again and were beaten by Mormon’s entrenched army (Mormon 3:8), but the following year the Nephites violated the Lords injunction and attacked the Lamanites south of the Narrow Neck (Mormno 4:1-2) and were soundly defeated, which was the cause of all their future losses.
    Thus, shortly after the treaty where this Pass and Narrow Neck became the dividing line between the Nephites and Lamanites was the site of the beginning of the last wars between the two, which eventually led to the invasion of the Lamanites into the Land Northward and the final battle at Cumorah.
Top: Photos of narrow passages; Bottom: Photo of a narrow neck of land 

Thus, the pass or passage mentioned were one of the same, one single pass, which provided passage between the two major land masses, the Land Southward and the Land Northward. There is nothing mysterious about this area, and since it was the dividing line between the Land Northward and the Land Southward (Mormon 2:29), it obviously was located within the Narrow Neck of Land. This is because the Land Southward (including the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla) were nearly surrounded by water except for the narrow neck of land that separated the two lands (Alma 22:32)—which also included the Land Bountiful “And he also sent orders unto him that he should fortify the land Bountiful, and secure the narrow pass which led into the land northward (Alma 52:9)
The two areas often discussed as the narrow neck of land is shown above in (left) Mesoamerica and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec; and (right) in the Isthmus of Panama. In both cases, passing through thre claimed narrow pass from east to west or west to east as shown, the sea would be on the north and south, not the east and west as Mormon writes in Alma 50:34 

This is also verified by the fact, that the narrow neck of land had a sea on both sides, as seen in the description: “by the narrow pass which led by the sea into the land northward, yea, by the sea, on the west and on the east” (Alma 50:34; emphasis added).
    Thus, the picture Mormon draws for us of the Narrow Neck of Land and the Narrow Pass (or Passage) is one of two large land masses, connected in between by a Narrow Neck of Land and through that Narrow Neck of Land was a Narrow Pass that provided egress between the two lands.
    Notwithstanding all of this simple explanation Mormon gives, so many theorists miss the mark when they try to place two entirely different locations for the Narrow Neck and the Narrow Pass, as Joseph L. Allen does, and all the Great Lakes, Heartland and Eastern U.S. theorists do.
    Sorenson, on the other hand, seems to understand that these two are in the same location, when he states: “Another geographical question that keeps coming up as one reads the Book of Mormon is the nature and location of the “narrow passage” referred to in Alma 50:34 and 52:9 and Mormon 2:29 and 3:5. It’s apparent from these verses that the pass is not the same as the narrow neck itself. Rather, it is some kind of specific feature within that neck area.”
The Narrow Pass or Passage is within the Narrow Neck of Land; the narrow neck of land connects heo Land Northward to the Land Southward; the narrow pass or passage allows egress from one land to the other 

Agreeing, Stoddard states: “The terms narrow pass/narrow passage and the term narrow neck of land are not synonymous terms. Seemingly, readers can easily discern that the narrow pass was located in the narrow neck of land.”
    Interesting how many others do not see it that way. Take F. Richard Hauck, who states: “One of the traditional assumptions of Book of Mormon scholars and casual readers has been to equate the 'narrow neck of land' with an isthmus... it has complicated and confused the numerous attempts made to identify the setting of the book, for the identification of the proper isthmus is frequently the primary focus of attempts made to identify the Book of Mormon geography...The west sea is clearly evident in the descriptions given in the text, but the east sea is never specifically mentioned as being associated with the narrow corridor” (Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon, Deseret Book Co, 1988, p12).
    It seems Hauck missed Mormon’s statement: “by the narrow pass which led by the sea into the land northward, yea, by the sea, on the west and on the east” (Alma 50:34). Now there is simply no way to disregard the fact that Mormon describes a sea on both sides, “by the sea, on the west and on the east” though Hauck evidently attempts to ignore or negate that comment.
    David G. Hennesey of BMAF who tries to place the narrow neck of land as a small part of a much larger land area, claiming it is the small part that is the narrow neck, with the narrow pass beyond at the far end.
An example of a Great Lakes Narrow Passage. Note 1) White Arrow shows 120-mile-wide entrance, not easy to black by a small Nephite force; 2) Red Arrow shows an approach to the pass, 3) Blue Arrow shows an end run around the wide open lands to the east of the pass, impossible to block by any size Nephite force. This simply is not a workable location for Mormon’s descriptions 

Wayne May, the founder of Ancient American magazine and author of This Land book series, shows a map of the Narrow Passage at the Great Lakes. His proposed Narrow Pass is at least 300 miles long (or more) and at its widest is 140 miles, and at its narrowest is just over 50 miles, with another “narrow” area about 70 miles wide. By the very definition of a “narrow pass” is that it is narrow! Which this line is certainly not and cannot possibly be considered as such. Nor does it give a single egress point, since the pass can be bypassed to the east around the south-eastern end of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.
    There are numerous other theorists’ models showing similar unworkable approaches. However, the simple answer is as stated above, a Narrow Pass within the Narrow Neck of Land, which is the only access between the Land Northward and the Land Southward.
    Yet, Stoddard, quoting Sorenson, in another source, says: “The pass led to the land northward. Control of the pass was required to get into the land northward (at least that part of interest to the Nephites then).” By “then,” Sorenson is referring to Alma 52:9, which dates to the first century BC. Sorenson is confused. At this point in time (the first century BC), as reflected in Alma 50:34, the Nephites are not on the north side of the narow neck (his Isthmus of Tehuantepec). Rather, they are on the south side, near the borders of the land Desolation. “By the sea, on the west and on the east” means they were at the west sea (Pacific Ocean, his Gulf of Tehuantepec) on both the west side and east side of the narrow pass that led into the narrow neck of land.”
    However, Stoddard seems confused, for Sorenson is merely stating that the Narrow Pass was controllable by the Nephites and was the only access into the Land Northward, for in the first century B.C., the Nephites were moving into the Land Northward in large numbers (Alma 63:9), therefore, this information would have been known to them. And Sorenson’s point is well taken: “The pass led to the land northward. Control of the pass was required to get into the land northward.”
    It is a simple understanding, yet even Stoddard and Sorenson have inaccurate concepts of the idea, as do almost all other theorists who try to bend Mormon’s simple explanations to fit their own Land of Promise models—and in so doing, change the meaning of Mormon’s simple descriptions.