Location of the Land of Promise – Part II

Continuing from the previous post, which ended with a critic’s comment that all ruins in South America and Mesoamerica were pre-flood. In fact, his exact words were: “What you are mistaking as Nephite building is actually pre flood. Pyramids were made pre flood on every continent.”
     Pre-flood? When the Spanish arrived in Cuzco in 1532, they were amazed at the newness of the boulders, walls, temple and fortress built on the hill overlooking the city. When asking the Inca who built it, the Inca said they didn’t know, but that it had been done very anciently. In addition, there are numerous mud-brick structures in Peru that had they been pre-flood, would have been washed away through disintegration from the flood waters, i.e., mud would have dissolved under water for that length of time.

If these ruins had been pre-Flood, meaning they were submerged beneath billions of tons of ocean water for nearly a year would have dissolved the mud-formed bricks into a mud pile; however, note the fine shape and detail that remains

    Mud brick does not disintegrate in rains, even mild water flooding from rains, since, in part, overhanging roofs reflect the water in runoff and the bricks are not saturated by rains. In addition, mud brick building was done in the southwest, within desert type arid climates and extremely dry, waterless areas. For a long time now, such mud brick houses have been built on water-proof foundations and raised stone bases and definitely not in flood plains. The first foot or so of the walls are of water resistant material—which rules out concrete which absorbs water. In fact, in ancient Egypt, mud brick houses along the river often crumbled away when the Nile rose and soaked the soil. And in Mesopotamia, archaeologists are frequently frustrated by finding indications of settlements for the period prior to the discovery of firing the bricks, for the very reason that even in that arid region the ruins have tended to "melt" back into the earth.

Again, mud brick detail so exact, would never have survived being inundated in ocean water for a year where it sucks up the water and eventually collapses into a mud slick

    Consequently, to think that mud brick buildings would survive a total flood inundating the mud brick site for months on end would survive at all, let alone with extreme detail still visible in the bricks is totally without merit. It also shows that this individual, like most critics, lacks knowledge of such construction and what is involved.
    It is often found that critics throw out what sounds to them like valid arguments without any research on their part to know that what they are saying is, indeed, a valid rationale. Often, as this one shows, they are not.

Very clear cut images in the mud brick facing of the largest adobe city in the Americas. Note the fine, sharp images that never would have survived being submerged in year-long flood water for so long a time—obviously, these are post-Flood buildings

    This critic went on to say: “If you believe the Book of Mormon then the land that the United States is on is the promised land. South America is not the promised land and neither is Mexico.” That is going to come as quite a surprise to several former Presidents and Church and other leaders who have claimed otherwise.
    As an example, Orson Hyde, referring to the Land of Promise said, “There shall no king be raised upon this land; and whosever seeketh to raise up a king on this land shall perish. This land means both North and South America, and also the families of islands that geographically and naturally belong and adhere to the same” (“Celebrating American Independence,” Salt Lake City, July 4, 1853, Journal of Discourses, Vol 7, 16, pp108,109). In addition, B.H. Roberts said, “these two American continents [North and South]. These continents are a promised land” (B.H. Roberts, History of the Church, p552fn)
    A North and South America Promised Land was also taught by several modern Prophets and leaders like Wilford Woodruff, who said, “This land, North and South America, is the land of Zion; it is a choice land—the land that was given by promise from old father Jacob to his grandson and his descendants, the land on which the Zion of God should be established in the latter days.” Journal of Discourses, 12 January 1873, 15, p279); and by Ezra Taft Benson, who said, “This is our need today—to plant the standard of liberty among our people throughout the Americas… the struggle for liberty is a continuing one—it is with us in a very real sense today right here on this choice land of the Americas” (Conference Report, October 1962, pp14–15), and also “To the peoples who should inhabit this blessed land of the Americas, the Western Hemisphere, an ancient prophet uttered this significant promise and solemn warning” (Conference Report, October 1944, p128). And J. Reuben Clark said it was here on this hemisphere is found the Land of Promise and Zion would be built (Conference Report June 9, 1940).

However, this critic went on to say: “Joseph Smith never said that any other place than where he stood was sacred.” Yet, it was Joseph Smith who said, “…speaking of the Land of Zion, it consists of all N[orth] & S[outh] America but that any place where the Saints gather is Zion which every righteous man will build up for a place of safety for his children…The redemption of Zion is the redemption of all N[orth] & S[outh] America.” (Martha Jane Knowlton Coray, edited by Dean C. Jessee, “Joseph Smith’s July 19, 1840 Discourse,” Brigham Young University Studies 19:3, Spring 1979, p. 392).
    And finally, Orson Pratt said, “The Lord brought a nation to this great western hemisphere, called the Jaredites…and among the promises given was the promise that this great western hemisphere should be given to them and to those that were worthy…and had all this western hemisphere promised to him and his righteous seed” (Journal of Discourses, August 1, 1880, p329).
    Obviously, numerous other remarks have been stated, both in Conference, and regional meetings, especially in Latin America, where Church leaders have repeatedly said that the Land of Promise covers both North and South America. For Heartland, Great Lakes, and Eastern U.S. theorists to keep claiming otherwise is an affront to the brethren who have repeatedly said otherwise.
    This critic also said, “The Book of Mormon happened in the Eastern United States. The narrow neck was near Niagara Falls. it fits perfectly. Quit looking in the wrong places.”

We have written so much about the eastern U.S. and how it does not match a single scriptural reference from the Book of Mormon. Saying something fits perfectly is one thing, showing it does by scriptural references is quite another. As an example, when Jacob said they were on an island in the midst of the sea over which they traveled, that is in no way a fit to the Great Lakes area, since sailing a vessel to the Great Lakes area in 600 B.C. was impossible as we have pointed out here numerous times. Neither the Mississippi River nor the Ohio River were navigatable at any time by deep ocean sailing vessels, nor was the St. Lawrence River, again, as we have pointed out, until the Corps of Engineers dredged these rivers, built bypasses to rapids and locks to move ships from one elevation to another.
    To this critic and others, saying it does is hardly an argument in its favor.