Relying on the text and not on interpretation

Based on their dubious interpretation of D&C 125:3, Jonathan Neville and other Heartlanders believe that the Book of Mormon city of Zarahemla was located across the Mississippi River from the modern city of Nauvoo. Neville asserts:

M2C scholars insist that Zarahemla cannot be in Iowa. When we read their justifications, though, they rely on their own interpretations of the text, not the text itself. While there is nothing inherently wrong with their interpretations, there is nothing inherently correct, either. Their M2C hypothesis is merely the logical result of their assumptions and interpretations.

Despite telling us that “the text itself” should be the authority, Neville tells us later in the same blog post:

The text [of the Book of Mormon] tells us little about the geography of Zarahemla, but we can tell the city was located along the river Sidon….

Some claim the river Sidon must flow north because the “head of the river” was south of Zarahemla, but the text reads “head of the river,” not “headwaters of the river.” The phrase “head of the river” is somewhat ambiguous; we can find usage and definitions that include both a conjunction and a source.

Rivers usually run toward areas of lower elevation

Neville’s insistence that the Sidon flowed south conflicts with his previous assertion that “the text itself” and not “interpretations of the text” should determine one’s beliefs. As I demonstrated earlier this year, a close reading of the Book of Mormon clearly indicates that the Sidon flowed to the north (unless one believes that gravity operated differently in Book of Mormon times than it does today).

This is just one example of how Heartlanders’ beliefs drive their interpretations of the text instead of the text determining their beliefs: Because of their idiosyncratic interpretation of D&C 125:3—an interpretation that no Church leader has ever so much as suggested—Heartlanders are forced to assert that the Sidon must be the Mississippi River, which flows south into the Gulf of Mexico. They rely on their own interpretations of the text, not the text itself.

—Peter Pan
 

Neville’s Book of Mormon geography makes no sense, part 2

Over a year ago, I posted the first in a series of articles critiquing Jonathan Neville’s proposed geography of the Book of Mormon. This is my long-delayed second entry in that series.

The river Sidon

The river Sidon is a signficiant geographic feature in the Book of Mormon. It played a prominent role in several battles described in the book of Alma, including the Amlicite War (Alma 2) and Captain Moroni’s defense of Manti against the Lamanite forces (Alma 43–44).

The river Sidon ran on a north/south axis through the land of Zarahemla, and the great city of Zarahemla was situated on its west bank (Alma 6:7). The head of the river was near the Nephite land of Manti, which itself was near the border between Nephites on the north and the Lamanites on the south (Alma 22:27, 29; 43:22; 50:11). The Sidon flowed into the sea (Alma 3:3; 44:22; although which sea the text does not say).

On the facts above, there is no dispute between Heartlanders and Mesoamericanists. The major point of disagreement between the two groups concerns the direction in which the river Sidon flowed and, hence, the meaning of the word head.

The direction of the river Sidon

Jonathan Neville’s fantasy map of the southernly course of the river Sidon

The Heartland theory of Book of Mormon geography is based largely on starting with a conclusion—that the events of the Book of Mormon took place inside the modern boundaries of the United States of America—and then working backwards from there to force the evidence to fit into the predetermined narrative. The direction of the river Sidon is just one example of this: Since Heartlanders insist—per their tortured interpretation of D&C 125:3—that the ancient city of Zarahemla must have been on the western bank of the Mississippi River, across from modern Nauvoo, Illinois, and therefore the Mississippi River is the Sidon.

The Book of Mormon identifies the “head” of the Sidon as being near the land of Manti, in the borders between Nephite and Lamanite lands (Alma 22:27; 43:22). Lamanite lands (and therefore Manti) were south of the city of Zarahemla (Alma 16:6; 50:7). The common definition of “head,” as it pertains to a river or stream, is its source or origin; that is how Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language defines it. (See def. 18.) If the head of the Sidon is south of the city of Zarahemla, then the Sidon must have flowed north past Zarahemla. This presents a problem to the Heartland geography, since the Mississippi River flows south to the Gulf of Mexico.

Jonathan Neville and other Heartlanders have tried to get around this obvious problem by claiming that “head,” as it pertains to the Sidon, doesn’t mean origin or source, but rather refers to a confluence, where two rivers come together. They base this claim on Webster’s 23rd definition of head, which is “body; conflux,” and then cross-referencing his definition of conflux, “a flowing together; a meeting of two or more currents of a fluid” (def. 1). Therefore, according to Heartlanders, the head of the Sidon was not its source; it was the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers, downstream from Zarahemla and Manti.

Why a south-flowing Sidon is impossible

As with many other claims made by Heartlanders, this one is too clever by half.

The most obvious problem with it, as other critics of the Heartland theory have rightly pointed out, is that the Book of Mormon itself defines the head of a river as the place “from whence it came” (1 Nephi 8:13–14).

Another significant obstacle to Heartlanders’ claims is that a close reading of the Book of Mormon clearly demonstrates that the land of Manti was higher in elevation than the land (and city) of Zarahemla:

• “And now it came to pass that as Alma was journeying from the land of Gideon southward, away to the land of Manti, behold, to his astonishment, he met with the sons of Mosiah journeying [in the opposite direction, i.e, north] towards the land of Zarahemla” (Alma 17:1). I’ve already established that Manti was south of Zarahemla, and Heartlanders do not dispute this. I mention it again because it’s important to understanding the next point.


• “And Alma returned and said unto them: Behold, the Lamanites will cross the river Sidon in the south wilderness, away up beyond the borders of the land of Manti” (Alma 16:6). The Book of Mormon is rigorously consistent in its uses of up and down to refer to elevation, not compass directions. It always describes people traveling from the Nephite-held land of Zarahemla “up to the land of Nephi” where the Lamanites dwelt (e.g., Mosiah 7:2, 4, 9:3; 20:7; 28:1, 5; 29:3; Alma 17:8; 20:2; 24:20; 26:23; 29:14), and it also always describes people traveling from the land of Nephi “down to the land of Zarahemla” (e.g., Alma 27:5; 51:11; 57:15–16, 28, 30; Helaman 1:17).


• That Manti was higher in elevation than Zarahemla is further demonstrated in Helaman’s epistle to Captain Moroni, in which he mentioned the land of Manti among the lands the Lamanites had captured (Alma 56:13–14). Helaman told Moroni that, from these strategic vantage points, the Lamanites dared not “march down against the city of Zarahemla; neither durst they cross the head of Sidon, over to the city of Nephihah” (Alma 56:25). Here again we see, in the plainest of readings, that Manti was higher in elevation than Zarahemla, and that nearby was the head or source of the river Sidon.

Conclusion

Since the lands of Manti and Nephi in the south were higher in elevation than the land of Zarahemla in the north, any river that ran through both lands would have to run in a northward direction from higher to lower elevation—unless, of course, Heartlanders wish us to believe that the laws of physics operated differently in Book of Mormon times.

Since the river Sidon ran from south to north, it therefore could not have been the Mississippi River, which runs from north to south.

This is another considerable problem with the Heartland theory of Book of Mormon geography. Heartlanders claim that “it just makes sense” that the Book of Mormon took place in the Midwestern region of the United States. It can only “make sense,” though, if one does not pay attention to the text of the Book of Mormon.

—Peter Pan
 

Neville’s Book of Mormon geography makes no sense, part 1

For some time I’ve wanted to critique Jonathan Neville’s proposed geography of the Book of Mormon. This is the first in what I expect will be a series that will demonstrate his proposed geography is fundamentally at odds with the descriptions given in the text of the book itself.

The problem with Neville’s geographic theory, of course, is that he’s put the cart before the horse: He presumes that the Book of Mormon took place in the “heartland” of the United States, based on his (undemonstrated) belief that the statements of prophets and apostles about the location of Cumorah were revealed by God and based on a strained interpretation of D&C 125:3 that claims it reveals the location of the Book of Mormon city of Zarahemla. These two references are what Neville calls “two pins on the map” in his books, Moroni’s America and Moroni’s America – Maps Edition:

Because of these two incorrect starting points, Neville has to twist himself into knots to force the geography described in the Book of Mormon to align with his “pins.”

One particular failure of his geography came to me suddenly today while I was reading Helaman 1:14–34. This passage describes the Lamanite invasion of Nephite lands that took place ten years after the end of the end of the great war with the Lamanites (Alma 62:39). Under the command of the Mulekite dissenter Coriantumr, the Lamanite army “came down” (Helaman 1:15) from the land of Nephi into the land of Zarahemla. The Nephites, torn apart by “so much contention and so much difficulty in the government,” were unprepared for the Lamanites’ attack, and Coriantumr easily took the Nephite capital city of Zarahemla (Helaman 1:18–20).

Overconfident because of his easy victory over the Nephite capital, Coriantumr

did not tarry in the land of Zarahemla, but he did march forth with a large army, even towards the city of Bountiful; for it was his determination to go forth and cut his way through with the sword, that he might obtain the north parts of the land. And, supposing that their greatest strength was in the center of the land, therefore he did march forth, giving them no time to assemble themselves together save it were in small bodies; and in this manner they did fall upon them and cut them down to the earth. (Helaman 1:23–24)

Four times the text of Helaman 1 explains that Coriantumr and his Lamanite army marched through “the center of the land” from their homelands in the land of Nephi, then to Zarahemla, then to Bountiful (1:24, 25, 26, 27). Coriantumr’s objective was to “obtain the north parts of the land” (1:23), which is a reference to the former Jaredite lands that the Nephites called Desolation.

Mormon had previously described the Nephites’ precarious position and their desperate need to keep the Lamanites from taking the lands in the north:

Now, the more idle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in tents; and they were spread through the wilderness on the west, in the land of Nephi; yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of their fathers’ first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore. And also there were many Lamanites on the east by the seashore, whither the Nephites had driven them. 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 came to the land which they called Bountiful. And it bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed, of whose bones we have spoken, which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla, it being the place of their first landing. (Alma 22:28–30)

At the time of Alma 22, the Lamanites occupied the land of Nephi, south of the land of Zarahemla (Alma 16:6; 50:7), and many Lamanites also lived “on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore” (Alma 22:28) and “on the east by the seashore.” “And thus,” Mormon explained, “the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites” (Alma 22:29). The Nephites occupied the center of the land of Zarahemla and held the strategic land of Bountiful, which was at the head of a “narrow pass” (Alma 52:9) or “narrow neck” (Alma 63:5) that led to the land northward. If the Lamanites had obtained the narrow pass, they would have had the Nephites surrounded, and would “have [had] power to harass them on every side” (Alma 52:9).

Prior to the great Lamanite war, Nephite captain Moroni drove the Lamanites out of the the wilderness areas on the west and the east of Zarahemla (Alma 50:7–12), giving the Nephites total control of the land of Zarahemla, from the sea west to the sea east. Ten years after the war, Nephite captain Moronihah “had supposed that the Lamanites durst not come into the center of the land, but that they would attack the cities round about in the borders as they had hitherto done” in the great Lamanite war (see Alma 51:22–28), “therefore Moronihah had caused that their strong armies should maintain those parts round about by the borders” (Helaman 1:26). In other words, Moronihah’s armies were in the west and east wilderness areas, along the west and east seashores. Because of this, captain Lehi was able to bring his army out of the wilderness and meet Coriantumr’s army in the center of the land before the Lamanites reached Bountiful, while Moronihah’s army also came out of the wilderness behind Coriantumr, surrounding the Lamanite army and defeating them (Helaman 1:28–31). Moronihah “took possession of the city of Zarahemla again, and caused that the Lamanites who had been taken prisoners should depart out of the land in peace” (Helaman 1:33).

Mormon’s descriptions of Nephite lands in the passages I’ve cited are clear and unambiguous. They were arranged something like this:

Jonathan Neville will certainly object that my general map looks a lot like all the other “fantasy maps” of the Book of Mormon that he rejects. But this arrangement is the only way to logically arrange Nephite lands so that they meet all the requirements of the passages cited above. Any proposed Book of Mormon map must depict Nephite lands in such a way that that they meet four criteria:

1. There were wilderness areas on the west and the east of the land of Zarahemla, the Nephite core.
2. Beyond the west and east wilderness areas were seashores.
3. The land of Bountiful was north of the land of Zarahemla.
4. The land of Bountiful was a defensive point before the “narrow pass” or “narrow neck” that led to the land northward (Desolation).

That’s the only way that Mormon could describe the Nephites as being “nearly surrounded by the Lamanites” (Alma 22:29), as well as “nearly surrounded by water” (Alma 22:32). There was no other avenue of escape for the Nephites—they had to hold the land of Bountiful, or else the Lamanites would have had them completely hemmed in with no means of escape.

Now let’s look at Jonathan Neville’s map of Coriantumr’s invasion in Helaman 1:

Neville’s map—which mistakenly identifies itself as describing the action in Helaman 2—fails all four criteria.

There is no way, in Neville’s map, for the Nephites to be “nearly surrounded by the Lamanites,” as Mormon described them. Even if one grants all the lands south of the Missouri and Ohio Rivers were Lamanite territory, that would only box in the Nephites on two sides. The Nephites would have had numerous ways to escape invading Lamanite armies, including through modern-day Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, with another escape route through Michigan.

In Neville’s map, Bountiful is of no strategic value in keeping the Lamanites from getting to the north parts of the land (or Desolation). The Lamanites could easily have done an end-run around Nephite lands through modern Pennsylvania, or crossed directly through Nephite lands in modern Indiana and Ohio and made their way north through Michigan, or traveled upriver along the Missouri to get north of the Nephites in Zarahemla, Iowa.

Neville tries to fix one of those three problems in his next map, number 75, in which he imagines that there was one continuous wood-and-earth fortification—a “Great Wall of Nephi,” if you will—between Lake Michigan (the “sea west”) and Lake Ontario (the “sea east”). This fantastic feat of construction—for which there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever—would have been over 600 miles long. (And Neville complains that BYU’s Virtual Book of Mormon is a “fantasy map”!)

Finally, there is the problem of the west wilderness and the east wilderness on either side of the land of Zarahemla, with each each wilderness bordering a seashore. There’s simply no way that can work in Neville’s geography. In order to fit his geographical square peg into the round hole of the American Midwest, Neville has to distort the meanings of basic words multiple times. Sometimes he expects us to believe that these wilderness areas were rivers (see map 9), even though the Book of Mormon tells us that people “lived in the wilderness” (Alma 22:28). Other times he expects us to believe that rivers were seas (see map 13, where he claims the lower Mississippi River was the sea west), except when he needs them to be rivers (see map 12, where he claims the Mississippi River is the river Sidon). And as for Nephite and Lamanite lands being “nearly surrounded by water” (Alma 22:32), he expects us to believe that means the Missouri and Ohio Rivers (see map 14), which were also wildernesses (per map 9).

Neville’s fantastic Book of Mormon geography is, in short, a mess. It makes no sense, doesn’t align with the book’s own descriptions of the lands, and requires us to define words in whatever way is convenient to Neville in an given passage.

—Peter Pan