Book of Mormon on the Baja

well, at least you’re getting back closer to the most possible location: Guatemala.

But the major problem with Baja is that Baja is too dry and too thin. You could probably run across Baja in one day at its shortest point, and Mormon noted that it took 2 or 3 days to run from east to west. At some of its shortest points, it’s probably no more than 50 or 60 miles. It doesn’t allow for “getting lost” which several groups in the Book of Mormon experienced. It’s also too dry. Where are the rivers? I mean, the River Sidon, sounds like a pretty big river, seeing that thousands of soldiers die there.

For me, no other theory makes better sense than Guatemala.

Dan,

“Baja is too dry and too thin.” I don’t know if you’ve read the Rosenvall’s theory, but they state,

‘A typical response to Baja California might well be: “What!” or, “Isn’t Baja California just a long sand bar south of San Diego?” Actually, Baja California is an 800 mile-long peninsula, with a delightful climate similar to California and the State of Israel. The area is nearly the size of Utah and five times the size of Israel. It is a land with a blessed physical environment of unusual variety and exciting vistas, and areas where the land narrows to
some 40 miles.’

It looks like you have the ‘typical response.’ As for it being too thin, well, if I do say so myself, Guatamela is too wide to cross in “2 or 3 days to run from east to west.” Sure 40 miles could be traversed by 1 person in a day, but I don’t think a large group would be traveling that fast with provisions in a day without modern transportation.

Thomas, I encourage you to download the Rosenvall’s PDF. On page 4 there is a photo with more than 6 trees. On page 34, Rosenvall states his case for the River Sidon.

Today the river is known as the Rio San Ignacio. It is of interest that the land of Israel with a similar climate regime has only one major river, the Jordan, and Egypt has only one, the Nile. Beyond being in the appropriate location relative to major Book of Mormon lands, the Rio San Ignacio and its surroundings should match the following geographical features:

Now, please don’t think I’m advocating any particular theory. However, I don’t think people should make erroneous assumptions without looking at the theory.

I think you are missing some important points mentioned in Mormon’s description of their lands as mentioned in Alma 22. The record clearly states that the land of Nephi “was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west” (Alma 22:27). Wouldn’t that suggest the sea was to the west of the land of Nephi as well as to the east, not the land of Zarahemla. The scriptures also state that there was “a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west” (Alma 22:27). Again, if there is a sea east and west of the narrow strip of wilderness and it divided the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla that the land of Zarahemla must be either “north” or “south” of the land of Nephi (Alma 22:27). I assume it was “north” because Mormon suggests that the people “did go forth from the land southward to the land northward” (Hel. 3:8).

It also states the “the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites; nevertheless the Nephites had taken possession of all the northern parts of the land” (Alma 22:29). If the Nephites were almost surrounded by the Lamanites “except” for the “northern” lands shouldn’t we assume the Lamanites were on the west, south and east of the land of Zarahemla. The scriptures also suggest that the land of Zarahemla was in the center when “the Lamanites … had come into the center of the land, and had taken the capital city which was the city of Zarahemla” (Hel. 1:27).

I’m not sure I follow your logic that the Mulekites landed on the “east” because the two groups did not meet. Wouldn’t the same logic apply if they were separated north to south. Remember there is a narrow strip of wilderness that separated the groups. Do you have any other references that infer an “east” landing?

You seem absolute in your logic and yet I think most honest readers would acknowledge that the Book of Mormon was not provided as a geography lexicon but rather a theological record of gospel truths. To understand the geography I think we need to remain open minded and use the text of the scriptures as our main reference.

Dan,

Your belief that “Baja is too dry and too thin” is an interesting declaration because it deals with climate and landforms. Both of which I believe are imperative to understanding the location of the Book of Mormon. I would ask however, too dry and thin relative to what? What most people think or what the record states. Let me share a few observations.

When the servants of King Lamoni are required to take the flocks to the waters of Sebus they know from experience that they maybe killed because other Lamanites will scatter the flocks. The question I ask is why did they go back to this location if their was a possibility of them being killed. Wouldn’t the easiest solution have been to take them to another watering hole away from the taunting Lamanites. An yet they didn’t. Let me suggest there wasn’t another water source which is typical in an arid or semi-arid location, not unlike areas in Israel.

During Moroni’s battle with Zarahemnah the armies cross the river Sidon six times with thousands of men, almost without thought. An army won’t jump in the water if they are being pursued, especially if they are surrounded on both sides, it’s suicide, and yet Zarahemnah crossed a river six times (Alma 43). This same river Sidon is eventually used to flush thousands of dead bodies to the sea. If you live in an arid climate you will understand this phenomena, for most of the year rivers in arid environments are pools of water with most of the water flowing underground, and occasionally during a rain storm they become torrent flows carrying animals and humans great distances. These examples of two extreme flow rates suggest the river Sidon was in an arid environment.

The record also suggests that the Nephite people crossed the river Sidon with their “flocks” (Alma 2:25). I don’t know if you have tried to get sheep or goats to cross a river but they won’t cross it unless it is just a few inches deep. Wouldn’t this suggest a river that has easy crossing locations such as those found in semi-arid or arid environments?

When Limhi’s people escape from the land of Nephi back to Zarahemla it is stated that the Lamanite army becomes lost and could not follow hundreds of people after just two days. How can this be that there are no broken branches, foot prints and flattened grasses created by these escaping people. This again suggests the land is arid and not heavily vegetated which is common in Chaparral areas which is only found in Mediterranean climates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaparral).

There are numerous accounts when the Nephites are journeying through the land that the people suffer “hunger and thirst” (Mosiah 7:16; Alma 17:5; 18:37; 37:42; 60:3). Why were they thirsty? Doesn’t this suggest that they didn’t have access to water during their journeys. Again, I must suggest that they lived in an arid environment.

The land of Jerusalem is a Mediterranean climate surrounded by arid lands. We know that the seeds Lehi brought to the new world from Jerusalem “grew exceedingly”. As any geographer knows this only happens if the climate the seeds came from is the same climate they are planted in. When you buy plants on the internet you notice you have to state what climate you live in before they ship the plants. A mediterranean climate has a dry season “a season of grain” and the areas around mediterranean climates are typically more arid, as in Baja California.

There are at least two references where the Nephite people could see the Lamanites coming for more than a day (230,000 of them). This would suggest there was a clear line of sight from where the Nephites and the Lamanites were. Again, I must assume from this that there were limited obstructions like trees and hills, which is very common in an semi-arid or arid environment.

From what I have read, I get the sense the Book of Mormon people lived in an semi-arid or arid environment as was suggested by Hugh Nibley. Do you have any references that suggest the people lived in a jungle or heavily wooded environment?

Dan,

You suggest that Baja California is “too thin.” Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon does not provide modern distances for the extent of their lands. The only reference we have is the number of days traveled. I do not know of any references that state that it took “2 or 3 days to run from east to west.” The term “run” is not used. I only know of two references that provide a distance from the east to the west sea (Alma 22:32; Hel. 4:7). These two scriptures suggest that it was a day to a day and half journey. Assuming a person can travel about 4 miles an hour and they use daylight to travel about 11 to 13 hours a day we would expect a distance of about 45 to 55 miles from the west sea to the east sea on the line between the land of Bountiful and the land of Desolation. Baja California has such a landform.

I know of no other explicit distances given for the distance across their lands. There are however a couple of points that we can use to deduce the potential distance where the land of Zarahemla is. The Book of Mormon clearly states “there were many Lamanites on the east by the seashore, whither the Nephites had driven them” (Alma 22:29). They had driven the Lamanites from the land of Zarahemla which is in the center of the land. I would ask how far would the Nephites had driven their enemies before they felt comfortable they were far enough away? I believe most war strategists will concur that you need be careful about thinning out your line of defense when you drive an enemy away. I would suspect 30 to 60 miles would be the maximum range you would drive an army away without the fear of getting too thin and being flanked. The Book of Mormon also states that the city of Moroni was eventually set up on the east sea, east of Zarahemla, and the cities of Aaron and Nephihah where built in between for defense. All of this triangulates to me of a distance of about 40 to 50 miles from Zarahemla to the east sea. Assuming Zarahemla is in the center we can speculate that the distance from the west sea to the east sea at Zarahemla may have been about 80 to 100 miles. Again Baja California matches such a distance.

Remember Moroni and Heleman waged two battles at the same time, one on the east seashore and one on the west seashore. According to the record men and supplies were exchanged between these two battle fronts while being supplied from the land of Zarahemla. One must ask how far would they be willing to go and leave the others exposed while exchanging supplies? I believe this suggests a much narrower landform than most have speculated.

There is another interesting point to consider about the landform of the Book of Mormon lands. Mormon clearly states “the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water” (Alma 22:32) and the Nephites “had hemmed in the Lamanites on the south” (Alma 22:33). Wouldn’t this suggest the Nephites where in the north and the Lamanites are in the south and the Lamanites had no other place to go. I must deduce the Lamanites were on a peninsula like land form if they were “hemmed in.” Every other model I have looked at leaves the entire south to escape to which is contradictory to Mormon’s description.

nice, I get to challenge the proprietor of this theory. David, you replied with so much, I’m not sure where to begin. Much of what you write about could also take place in any of theoretical locations, and are not exclusive to Baja. But let’s go over the evidences you cite that would be exclusive to Baja, evidence that points to Baja over any other possible location. I think the most important point that needs to be cleared up in order to proceed is your very first point:

I think you are missing some important points mentioned in Mormon’s description of their lands as mentioned in Alma 22. The record clearly states that the land of Nephi “was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west” (Alma 22:27).

When you say “land of Nephi” do you mean it as Mormon means it? For Mormon “land of Nephi” means the land of inheritance, the land where Lehi first landed. My problem is that you cite Alma 22:27 as your source that Mormon indicates the “land of Nephi” “was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west.” I think you should reread Alma 22:27

27 And it came to pass that the king sent a proclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in all the regions round about, which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west, and which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west—and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided.

Who sent this proclamation? Was it a Nephite? No, this was King Lamoni’s father, or the King of all Lamanites who made a proclamation throughout all the lands in which Lamanites lived. This section does not describe the “land of Nephi.” Verse 28 better describes the relative location of the “land of Nephi.”

28 Now, the more aidle 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.

The land of Nephi is “in the place of their fathers’ first inheritance,” “on the west,” “the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore.” The “land of Zarahemla is, according to verse 27, “north” of where King Lamoni’s father’s capital is, the land of Zarahemla divided his land with a “narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west.” The land of Zarahemla is also east of where the Lamanites lived, according to verse 28. The land of Zarahemla is where the Mulekites arrived about the same time as Lehi’s group. Where the Mulekites land is of vital importance in understanding possible locations of BoM geography. Sadly we just don’t have a single clue as to which route they took. But it seems their land of inheritance was on the eastern seashore. I have a hard time believing they were driven by the Lord to the eastern shore of Baja California and them simply choosing to go on straight to bigger, richer Mexico. Remember, they didn’t bring along any scriptural record with them. One could even assume they did not have a prophetic leader with them, but simply fled when the Babylonians invaded Jerusalem. They may have just gotten on a boat in the Mediterranean Sea and went out as far as they could. But hey, that’s all guessing as we have no evidence of anything related to the Mulekites except that they were on the eastern shore of our yet to be determined location of the events of the BoM.

Now on to some of your other points

Again, if there is a sea east and west of the narrow strip of wilderness and it divided the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla that the land of Zarahemla must be either “north” or “south” of the land of Nephi (Alma 22:27). I assume it was “north” because Mormon suggests that the people “did go forth from the land southward to the land northward” (Hel. 3:8).

I’m in agreement that the Land of Zarahemla is north of the Land of Nephi. As I am a proponent of the Guatemala/Belize/Southern Mexico location, this fits, as I believe that big peninsula where Cancun is located is the land of Zarahemla.

I’m not sure I follow your logic that the Mulekites landed on the “east” because the two groups did not meet. Wouldn’t the same logic apply if they were separated north to south. Remember there is a narrow strip of wilderness that separated the groups. Do you have any other references that infer an “east” landing?

Indeed the same logic would apply. Like I said, Mormon’s geographic descriptions are dizzying, as they both indicate that Zarahemla is northward as well as eastward. So I chose northeast. Which in the Guatemala location is the Cancun peninsula. That’s both north and east of the Land of Nephi.

You seem absolute in your logic and yet I think most honest readers would acknowledge that the Book of Mormon was not provided as a geography lexicon but rather a theological record of gospel truths. To understand the geography I think we need to remain open minded and use the text of the scriptures as our main reference.

I’m quite open about other possible locations, and I really do appreciate Mormon Heretic’s efforts to show the various theories. In my mind, the Guatemala location makes the most sense because it requires me to suspend less logic than any other location. I honestly cannot fathom, for example, the Great Lakes theory. Or the Malay theory. The Baja theory gets back to a better location, but it just doesn’t make much sense to me. I have to suspend a lot of belief in order to accept the logic behind that location. See, there is archaeological evidence in the Guatemala area of a fairly advanced, religious population, and even has possible evidence of the Jaredites! (the Olmecs). The Cochimi of Baja don’t offer any nuggets that at some point in their history there was much of anything special (like, say, a visit from the Son of God!).

Now, your examples in #8 don’t indicate an exclusivity to the land of Baja over that of Guatemala. For the life of me, I cannot find a massive river running through the Central America location. Furthermore, while that land gets more rain than Baja, that does not mean water is not scarce. http://www.springerlink.com/content/w15600546p4t4114/ You can see that because of the geographic and geologic design, the Yucatan peninsula has a scarcity of water, which requires digging of wells. The Yucatan, however, has amazing hidden caverns of water. Unless you know where they are, though, you’re liable to thirst. This may well explain the watering holes of King Lamoni’s shepherds. But yeah, you can die of thirst in a jungle.

From what I have read, I get the sense the Book of Mormon people lived in an semi-arid or arid environment as was suggested by Hugh Nibley. Do you have any references that suggest the people lived in a jungle or heavily wooded environment?

I look at Helaman 3:9-11 for example which indicates that the Land northward, or the Land of Desolation was “exceedingly scarce” and that wood was shipped from the land southward, indicating that the land southward had an abundance of trees, enough to ship to the land northward so they could build their “many cities.”

9 And the people who were in the land northward did dwell in tents, and in houses of cement, and they did suffer whatsoever tree should spring up upon the face of the land that it should grow up, that in time they might have timber to build their houses, yea, their cities, and their temples, and their synagogues, and their sanctuaries, and all manner of their buildings.
10 And it came to pass as timber was exceedingly scarce in the land northward, they did send forth much by the way of shipping.
11 And thus they did enable the people in the land northward that they might build many cities, both of wood and of cement.

On to your #10, where you posit:

I only know of two references that provide a distance from the east to the west sea (Alma 22:32; Hel. 4:7). These two scriptures suggest that it was a day to a day and half journey. Assuming a person can travel about 4 miles an hour and they use daylight to travel about 11 to 13 hours a day we would expect a distance of about 45 to 55 miles from the west sea to the east sea on the line between the land of Bountiful and the land of Desolation. Baja California has such a landform.

Just a few things to note. Say we take your 4 miles an hour example. If one travels for twelve hours, he will walk 48 miles in one day. The journey is a day and a half, according to Mormon, thus the distance, if we use 4mph is 72 at its shortest. Baja is much shorter than 72 miles at its shortest. It’s more like 50 miles or so, which one could do in one day. Again, we have no idea what Mormon means by a “day and a half” journey. I was wrong on the two or three day journey, and I can’t remember why I thought it was 2 or 3 day. For comparison, the narrowest part of Southern Mexico is probably about 200 miles.

Assuming Zarahemla is in the center we can speculate that the distance from the west sea to the east sea at Zarahemla may have been about 80 to 100 miles. Again Baja California matches such a distance.

This doesn’t give the Lamanites much room to “nearly surround” the Nephites. The distance between Guerrero Negro and Santa Rosalia in Baja is only 136 miles. For comparison, the distance between Ciudad del Carmen, Mexico and Belize City, Belize is 242 miles. What I’m basically saying is that the Guatemala location is not really that much bigger, thus events you describe can easily take place there as well as in Baja.

There is another interesting point to consider about the landform of the Book of Mormon lands. Mormon clearly states “the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water” (Alma 22:32) and the Nephites “had hemmed in the Lamanites on the south” (Alma 22:33). Wouldn’t this suggest the Nephites where in the north and the Lamanites are in the south and the Lamanites had no other place to go. I must deduce the Lamanites were on a peninsula like land form if they were “hemmed in.” Every other model I have looked at leaves the entire south to escape to which is contradictory to Mormon’s description.

On this point, I don’t have an answer. I honestly don’t know why the Lamanites would not go further south, or heck, since Mexico is visible from Baja, why they wouldn’t simply cross the Gulf of California and expand outward there.

On to #11, you state:

Many have asked why the Nephites wouldn’t have sailed onto mainland Mexico. I don’t know the record doesn’t say anything about sailing onward. Remember the Lord had told them when they arrived after their long journey that they had arrived in the “promised land”. If they felt they had arrived at their final destination why would they have felt to continue further? You assume that the Nephites where a “conquering” people and yet the record is quite clear they where a defensive people

I don’t consider the Nephites conquerors, but I do definitely consider them expansionists and explorers. By the very nature of the fact that they travelled such a long distance, and by the fact that Lehi’s family was nomadic in the Arabian Peninsula indicates that they were explorers by nature. If I were an explorer and nomad by nature, I would explore this new land I was transported to. And when I came across limitations, I would find a way around them. I believe Baja too narrow a land, too dry and lacking many resources which are discussed in the BoM. However, the Guatemala theory does not have those problems.

It is not easy to sail from mainland Mexico to Baja California. This is obvious if your read the journals of the first Europeans who tried. It often took them multiple attempts to get across. The Europeans had been in mainland mexico for nearly two hundred years before they started colonizing Baja California in 1698. We can’t assume they had modern boats and equipment.

There’s a reason why Europeans didn’t actually colonize on Baja until 1697: it’s a desert! But that said, can you share your evidence that the Europeans had a tough time getting to Baja.

Remember they thought they were on “an isle of the sea” (2 Ne. 10:8).

That verse does not describe the Nephites self-describing themselves as belonging to the isles of the seas. The full verse is as follows:

8 And it shall come to pass that they shall be gathered in from their long dispersion, from the isles of the sea, and from the four parts of the earth; and the nations of the Gentiles shall be great in the eyes of me, saith God, in carrying them forth to the lands of their inheritance.

I don’t see how you get the Nephites thinking they belong to the Isles of the Seas from that verse.

You have suggested that Mexico has “much richer land”. This is not true, most of the fruits and vegetables that are consumed in the western US come from Baja California not mainland Mexico.

Can you offer evidence of this please.

Mediterranean climates provide for much more abundance and ease of living. That is why most of the populations gravitate to such climates.

Actually no, most populations gravitate toward hotter, richer climates. Most of the world’s population lives in the hot climates of India and the Orient. That is a not mediterranean climate, and a mediterranean climate would not be able to sustain that large of a population.

“with a delightful climate similar to California…”

In the neighborhood of TJ south to Ensenada, and around Los Cabos, maybe. The rest has a delightful climate similar to Barstow, California, i.e, not particularly delightful at all. It’s a by-george desert. Take a quick GoogleMaps look at the “Rio” San Ignacio. A dry wash that daylights only at scattered oases. And the handful of palm trees (many of them date palms brought by the Spanish) around the oases aren’t enough “timber” to mention.

” This is not true, most of the fruits and vegetables that are consumed in the western US come from Baja California not mainland Mexico.”

I was under the impression that most of the fruits and vegetables we’re talking about come from Alta California’s Central and Imperial Valleys. The Imperial Valley does continue a bit into Mexico, but the bulk of the agriculture done there is still north of the border in Imperial County. The rest of Baja doesn’t have much water, and therefore little agriculture.

The biggest problem, I think, is that for anything remotely resembling the Book of Mormon populations to have survived in Baja, there would have had to be massive irrigation projects. I’m not aware of remains of anything like that in Baja.

David #11: “I must correct you on a number of your assumptions. It is not easy to sail from mainland Mexico to Baja California. This is obvious if your read the journals of the first Europeans who tried. It often took them multiple attempts to get across. The Europeans had been in mainland mexico for nearly two hundred years before they started colonizing Baja California in 1698.”

The Spanish in Mexico discovered Baja almost immediately after conquering the Aztecs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_de_Ulloa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Cabrillo

The problem wasn’t any difficulty in sailing across the Gulf of California; the problem was finding anyone interested in bothering with a godforsaken desert when you had plenty to do colonizing Mexico proper. After all, Alta California (God’s own country until the @#$#@ real estate speculators and political leeches got ahold of it) wasn’t settled for almost another century after Baja was, and even then only by a handful of missionaries and soldiers. Spain and Spanish Mexico just didn’t have the excess population to settle even the good spots, let alone a land whose highest and best use is extracting tourist dollars from gringos, who in Book of Mormon times hadn’t been invented yet.

Thomas,

You are correct the “most choice” parts of Baja California are the north west and the south. With the center being more arid, not unlike the areas around Israel. But I believe the Book of Mormon correlates to this fact. The Nephites are driven northward from the “land of their first inheritance” (south) to Zarahemla (center). Upon arriving in Zarahemla Zeniff and others want to return back to the Land of Nephi (south). I’ve assumed that was because Zarahemla (center) wasn’t as nice as the land of Nephi (south). The record also suggests that those who travel to the land northward (north) never return, perhaps they found a better location than Zarahemla (center). Remember also that Mosiah and his people integrated with the people of Zarahemla in Zarahemla (center) which is not common for two groups that do not know each other, perhaps they were compelled to live together because of the more arid environment. Just a thought.

What sizes of populations do you believe the Nephites got to? The largest number I can estimate is at the time of the final destruction where there were 230,000 Nephites destroyed, assuming there were more Lamanites I would suspect the maximum number was about 600,000 to 700,000 in A.D. 400. Assuming that final number and a starting number of 30 to 40 people in 600 B.C. you get a natural growth rate of 1 to 2% which would suggest there were 10,000’s of people during most of the record, except from 200 to 300 B.C. where there may have been 100,000’s of people. Do you have any other estimates of people?

FireTag,

Your question revolves around why didn’t the Nephites travel off the peninsula of Baja California to another land like Mexico. I think they eventually did but it was much later after the final destruction after the “Nephite” people were destroyed. This is based on the migration locations of the Uto-Aztecan people.

Let me suggest something one must consider. The people of Nephi felt they had been sent to a promised land given to them by God. We must assume their “promise” or relationship with the Lord was based on this “promised” land. Why would they throw that away by leaving? You can think of the Jews in Israel today. They believe they have been “promised” the land east of the Mediterranean Sea and are willing to die to protect it, even though there are other lands around it that many would suggest are better or “richer”. I suspect the Nephites remained there because it was part of the “promise” given to them and felt indebted to it.

I assume you haven’t been to central Baja California. There is no problem agriculturally sustaining the numbers mentioned in the Book of Mormon. I share a similar desire for archaeological evidence, unfortunately, no archaeological research has been done on the interior of Baja California. We can’t assume because we have no information that it doesn’t exist. Over time we hope more information will come forward that correlates with our theory. We are working with others towards this end.

What references in the Book of Mormon do you use for your assertion that “the neighborhood of Zarahemla clearly contains substantial wooded areas?” I know of hills, banks, valleys and wilderness, but nothing saying it was “wooded.” We have not proposed the mouth of the Rio Mulege as the River Sidon. We propose the Rio San Ignacio which has a unique head fed by seven springs.

Absolutely there are areas that can support an army of 230,000 and those who would have defeated them. Again, I suspect from your comment you haven’t been there. Even though Utah is a “desert” it can easily support the numbers you are talking about because it isn’t all desert, as you have assumed. Baja California and Utah have a similar area.

I don’t know much about the route Moroni took other than according to Brigham Young he dedicated the site of the Manti Temple in Utah. He also wandered for 26 years before depositing the plates in a hill north of Manchester New York. According to Mormon, Moroni’s father, he deposited the majority of the Nephite records in the hill Cumorah “except” for the plates he gave to Moroni (Morm 6:6). Moroni then fled from area around the hill cumorah as the Lamanites were trying to kill him (Moro. 1:3). Beyond that I’d have to speculate. Remember the Mormon Battalion marched a similar route in reverse, seems possible.

Dan,

They are a “migrating” group due because they have been driven from their homes by fighting with the Lamanites, but I’m not sure they are like european colonists. True many left but not the main record keepers and governing people.

I did respond to your comment early this morning but it is “awaiting moderation.”

Dan,

From the record it appears they protected the northern lands so “they might have a country whither they might flee” (Alma 22:34). It sounds more like a “secondary” motivation than their “primary” motivation for “migrating”.

#24 Dan — Utah isn’t self-sufficient in food production. I suspect Baja isn’t, either. In both cases, that’s even with mechanized, synthetic-fertilizer-intensive, irrigation-supported agriculture.

Even if not all of Baja is technically Kopppen-classification “desert” (neither is Utah), it’s arid enough that a large subsistence-agriculture-supported population would be difficult to impossible to sustain. Going one step further, the pre-Third Nephi Lamanites (who always seemed to outnumber the agricultural or pastoral Nephites) weren’t agricultural anyway (Enos 1:20). That makes the demographics even harder to square; hunter-gatherer societies take even more land to live on.

Thomas,

Going one step further, the pre-Third Nephi Lamanites (who always seemed to outnumber the agricultural or pastoral Nephites) weren’t agricultural anyway (Enos 1:20). That makes the demographics even harder to square; hunter-gatherer societies take even more land to live on.

Excellent point. Hunter gatherers who well outnumbered the more agricultural/pastoral Nephites. Surely they would need a fairly rich land teeming with animals if they are hunter gatherers.

FireTag,

I agree the Lamanites where more of a “conquerer” type of people, unfortunately, we don’t have their record. We only have some of it through the records of the Nephites.

bah, my comment is awaiting moderation. Can an admin please help.

Andrew,

I thought you were an unbeliever

I believe Joseph Smith was right, but he also said that Illinois was part of the Land of Desolation. This makes the typical Manti in Missouri statements that Heartland US theorists grab onto a city that was not the one below the Narrow neck of land, but something named after the original. This is my personal belief, based on what I think the Spirit is personally telling me. This is not methodological geography based solely on the text.

When believers of the Mesoamerican theory in particular say that Joseph Smith’s statements cannot be used, this is really referring to methodological geography versus historical statement driven geography. They don’t base their assumptions on what Joseph Smith said, but just on the text of the Book of Mormon. And when their personal interpretations of the text lead them to other conclusions, they naturally don’t give any heed to the historical statements. But why should Joseph Smith’s statements be given any greater weight methodologically than any other prophet’s statements, like F. Michael Watson who retracted the statements on Cumorah or Orson Pratt who believed in the Hemispherical theory? Is it your favorite prophet against my favorite prophet? Why then should any historical statement say anything methodologically about geography when no methodology rationally exists for straining out what one person said over another person short of personal belief and opinion?

Thomas,

Your question about “carrying capacity” is an important question and one we have researched. There are two parts, how many people did the land have to “carry” and can the land grow food? I’ve suggested there were at most 700,000 people at the time of the final destruction. Baja has an area of about 27,000 sq miles, assuming they used about 3/4 of that we would have about 35 people per square mile. This is a macro view, you must also look at the micro view. Can specific areas carry families, much like when the pioneers came to Utah. They didn’t use the entire state they used specific locations. As we traveled the entire peninsula along highway 1 we stopped at a number of farms and were amazed at the number of them and the fertility of the land, even in the semi-arid locations. I have no problem with the carrying capacity of Baja California. Have you visited Baja or have any research to suggest that it can’t? I’d be interested in your research. It appears you are making assumptions without doing the due diligence.

Andrew, I don’t know what theory is your favorite. John Sorenson is the most respected scholar on Book of Mormon geography, and this is a quote from his book as to why we shouldn’t worry about what the “brethren” (including Joseph Smith) said concerning Book of Mormon geography. The following quote is from the book “The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book“, by John Sorenson, page 210, which talks about how to systematically evaluate BoM geography. (I will bold some parts I find particularly important.)

“If we are to progress in this task, we must chop away and burn the conceptual underbrush that has afflicted the effort in the past. We must stop asking, as many do, what have the Brethren said about this in the past? It is clear enough (see Appendix A) that none of them knew the answer (which is what some of them have said often enough). And equally we must stop asking, what civilization known to the archaeologists must the Nephites have participated in? This is completely irrelevant at the present stage of study.

Where we must begin is with the words of Mormon and his associates who kept the original records. From their words we must derive every scrap of meaning; I assume that their knowledge of geography was so integral and holistic that meanings are tucked into their records at a level below intention. We must sift for these. We cannot omit any of them, for crucial clues may occur in or between words or lines where we had not seen them before.

Sorenson documents several of Joseph Smith’s statements on the subject of Book of Mormon geography. Smith is reported to have said that Lehi landed 30 degrees south of the equator. Smith claimed that the Isthmus of Panama was the narrow neck of land (at the time, Panama was known as Darien). Furthermore, when ancient ruins were discovered in the Yucatan Peninsula, Smith claimed it was Zarahemla–but it turns out to have dated from the wrong time period. You have mentioned mounds from Missouri to New York that Joseph referenced. Clearly, Joseph and most members believed in a hemispheric model. Few scholars support the idea of a hemispheric model–a limited geography model seems much better suited to the text. Sorenson basically concludes that Joseph didn’t know, and Joseph latched on to some claims he shouldn’t have (especially Zarahemla.) It doesn’t diminish Joseph theological strengths, but it does seem to show that he didn’t understand Book of Mormon geography.

David, to answer your question, no, I haven’t visited central Baja. Haven’t gotten farther south than Ensenada, mainly because (1) I have to slave away at a job, and (2) I’d rather not get kidnapped, thank you very much. However, I do have access to Google Maps — and from what I see, the majority of Baja is either serious desert or (non-arable) mountains. So you can’t use the whole territory of Baja to calculate its people-per-square-mile carrying capacity. (As a comparison, Utah — which has far better water resources than Baja, thanks to the Wasatch Front watershed, has a population density of 27 people per square mile — and still isn’t self-sufficient in food production. With modern agriculture.

I see some farms, especially in the north, but seriously, amigo, look at the map. The little islands of land suitable for agriculture are few and far between. And that’s with modern technology, and the resulting ability to store and move what little water there is. You’re asking us to believe that Baja — which at the time of European contact, contained just a handful of scattered Indian tribes — had a larger population than even the highest estimate of Alta California’s Indian population, which (again, thanks to Alta California’s paradaisical environment, was the highest in North America north of Mexico).

You have certainly done more hands-on local observations in Baja than I have (although a genuine historian would probably quibble with the notion that driving around Baja is technically “research”), but I think your basic premises haven’t been sewn up quite as tightly as they need to be. You need to (1) identify the carrying capacity per square mile of territory for an agricultural population of at least 230,000, and a hunter-gatherer population of at least 470,000 (using your estimate of the numbers) and (2) identify the percentage of territory in Baja that is reasonably capable of food production.

Thomas,

You are correct, a visit does not constitute an extensive research in the “carrying capacity” of the land. But it is a necessary start, and from my initial visits and questioning it very much appears to provide the necessary environment to sustain the number of people suggested by the Book of Mormon.

In the same spirit I don’t think looking at satellite images qualifies for conclusive deductions either. I remember the mental image I had of the land from the brown and “barren” looking images that are found on Google earth. I was completely shocked how green the actual land was all along highway one from the north to the south. Remember that Baja California is one of the few “fog deserts” of the world which have unique features for plant life. In visiting the many farms and seeing what they are able to grow I only wish I was able to grow what they do there in Utah, even in the center of Baja California.

I believe the Book of Mormon correlates with what was found when the europeans first arrived there. Remember the Lord revealed to Nephi and Alma that Lehi’s descendants would be “swept off” if they did not keep the Lord’s commandments. Based on what happened at Cumorah I believe the land should look desolate based on what was revealed centuries before. That’s why the Uto-Aztecan group of Native American’s is so interesting if the people who dwelt on the peninsula were driven off.

You need to read our article on the Jaredites which we believe explains why Alta California has the highest concentration of Native Americans. We believe they are the descendants of the friends of Jared and his brother.

Have you been to their website http://www.achoiceland.com and viewed the video on the Hill Riplah? The way that they tie the geographyof the Ignacio River (Sidon) to the battle’s description given in the Book of Mormon is astounding. Also, for good information on present Baja archeology by William Massey, go to http://www.innerexplorations.com/catsimple/exped10.htm . This site mentions skulls that are unique to Baja and, not clovis man but elongated and possibly european, a preserved mamoth (elephant) that was found by early Spaniards, large concentrations of arrowheads that suggest not hunting but battles between the Baja’s inhabitants, and wooden tablets used by shamans to ”instruct” the people. 

My personal assessment is that the Rosenvall’s theory comes closest to matching the specifications outlined in the Book of Mormon (Alma 22). What they really need to find is some evidence of buiding, footings, ore smelting, ancient agriculture, etc. Wonderfully, less archeology has been done in Baja than anywhere else in Mexico, so there is alot to explore, and perhaps find.