Often various physical facts can be used to support positions favoring suggested sites for the Hill Cumorah and the Book of Mormon Geography. And often doctrinal topics are left in arrears as the 'facts of the matter' get presented. But the more I study the Book of Mormon and its Geography, the more I have come to believe that the Book of Mormon Geography is not soley dependent upon the 'facts of the matter.' I believe that often the Book of Mormon Geography becomes a matter of Doctrine. Because the 'Promised Land' was and is the 'Promised Land of Adam' from creation, the Garden of Eden, the location of Adam's first sacrifice, and the site where Adam called all his children together before his death. Yes, the 'Promised Land' includes the location Adam-ondi Ahman, the building of the New Jerusalem, the site of the last gathering of the children of god, the site of the City of Enoch's return, and the 'One Nation Under God' that it is today~All of America. I believe there is a basis for a Doctrinal insight into what constitues this promised land of the Jaredites, of Lehi, and of Nephi to which Columbus was brought. And I believe that this Doctrinal insight helps to define what must be consitered to be included as a part of the Lands of the Book of Mormon, this land that is most precious above all other lands. I believe that to be 'one Doctrinal Key' to the Geography of the Book of Mormon—to all of America, North, South and Central America.

And there are others as well, I don't think lightly about the fact that the Golden Plates where to come from the dust of the earth as though speaking from the dead buried thousands of miles away. I consider that the Book of Mormon came from the very site of where the inhabitants of these great nations laid down their lives in their great final battles of extinction. And as well as it being the site where the banner of Liberty and Freedom were raised again to the world. It seems to ring of Doctrinal confirmation. I believe this to be 'another Doctrinal Key' to the Geography of the Book of Mormon.

And then there is 'still another Docrinal Key' which this writing will now consider. It is a doctrinal question which helps define the real nature of Cumorah. Knowing Mormon to be the man of gospel principle that he was, what Church of Jesus Christ doctrine would support Mormon in making a 'death wish' for the last half million people of the Nephite nation? I believe it helps to sort out the question of there being two Cumorahs to consider the question, 'Was Mormon's last stand against the Lamanites a suicidal 'Death Wish' or was it a strategically designed 'Last Alternative?' Knowing my religion, there is no place in it to commit suicide, especially when there are viable alternates which yield life. And though in a 'hopeless' situation, Mormon was not finished fighting for life, as even he did even after Cummorah as recorded by Moroni.

I don't think there is a need to argue such physical evidences of whether a person can travel from 75 to 125 miles across a narrow neck of land in just a day and a half, which the MesoAmerican Theorist support and I concede as even the Buccaneer William Dampier records the indian could transverse the narrows of the Isthmus of Darien in that day and a half's journey. And it seems pointless to argue if a person couldn't easily travel on average a mile a day, while being pursued by a rapidly moving invasionary numerous host of murderous enemies who are dead set on slaughtering every one of them. The last Nephite and Lamanite wars went from the narrow neck of land to the Hill Cumorah from 375 AD to 385 AD. That is 10 years, over 3650 days, which figures to be less than a mile per day average distance to flee over a ten year period from the Isthmus of Darien to the Land of Cumorah in the state of New York. Or would one think that Mormon only moved his people the same distance from the narrow neck as the neck is wide in 10 years of retreat when that distance could be traveled by a Nephite in a day and a half?

You are vastly out numbered. You know that you are going to be killed if you stay and fight. And not only you but your wife and children as well. There is lands to the north that you can and do flee to. Your back is not up against a wall. Do you stay and fight to the death in a battle which sacrifices your people in the vary lands that your enemy now controls or do you flee as long and as far as you can for your lives? The logic of the MesoAmerican theorist says that despite knowing that you and your family will be killed if you 'stay', being vastly out numbered, you stay with your family and little ones just to fight and be killed. That is not acceptable doctrine for Mormon to have his people comply to. That is a 'death wish.' That is suicide. After fleeing, being pursude and slaughter as dew before the rising sun according to the Book of Mormon itself (Mormon 4:18), for over a decade of time were they so swept off by the Lamanites, does one just calmly march all the way back over 10 years distance of flight to within a narrow necks' distance, a day and a half's journey for a Nephite, from the narrow neck to offer one's people up to the convenience of the Lamanites and to corner youself in to merely allow them to finish the work of death against you at a Cumorah so closely located? I think and protest NOT.

The 'nail' in considering this manner ought to be Mormon's own very stated intent and purpose of sellecting the 'land of Cumorah'. He states 'here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites'. The many waters, rivers and fountains were of strategic placement and significance and not merely a 'backdrop' wall up against which the Nephites could be pressed. The finger lakes among the many drumlin glacier hills and rivers and fountains, greater lakes and waterfalls of the New York site so provided that strategic advantage to the designing informed warrior that Mormon was. Like his hero, Captain Moroni, Mormon had plans of strategy worked out in such a land that was not just a swampy muddy single backdrop to a suicidal death wish staged upon the site of one hill of Cumorah (Mormon 6:4). Mormon had divided his quarter million number of forces into armies of 10,000 each to so strategically fight and manuver within such an environment as the long ridge drumlin glacier hills, finger lakes and rivers of western New York. He did not do this that they would all stand enmass, men, women and children at one hill of Cumorah in MesoAmerica a short distance from the narrow neck of land in Lamanite controlled territory. What would be the hope in gaining the advantage in that? He had a stage of entrapments and flanking the enemy upon unsuspected sides of 'ambush' amid the maze of 'long ridge hills', 'tunnel valleys' and 'finger lakes'. These could be used to form places of concealment and even some security as well as to funnel their enemy along lake, valley and hill 'walls' of containment; not to mention even various avenues of escape and places of hiding—and not just for plates of record.

In the case of the warped minds of the Jaredites, those theorists may have had a point. Both sides were of the opinion that they could win and they both hated each other enough to stand toe to toe to finish it once and for all. But even then, if there was land to flee to, the question is, why didn't some of them flee to those lands and live? Even the Jaredites, with all of their hatred and love of war, they did also push it to the limits of the land, to the Hill Ramah which is Cumorah. And were faced with the last alternative questions of being cornered as were Coriantumr's people.

The logic of the 'traditional' model speaks better in both cases. It presents a people with their backs to the wall so to speak, with no where else to flee to. To a people who are indigenous to tropical and mild climates, a frozen north land is just as much a wall and barrier as is an ocean. It just is not a place where they can go to, to live. The 'traditional' model portrays the image of a people persued into a corner of having no further realistic place of retreat. Backed up into the northeast corner of the United States, pressed against the Ocean and the great lakes, with only the 'ice' lands on one hand and the enemy on the other, what do you do but stand and fight, even if death is obvious? That is logic. But where is the logic of the limited land picture of MesoAmerica? Only a suicidal 'death wish' can be portrayed there. For if they wanted to live, they could have fled thousands of miles to the north, and to the north west and to the north east from the limited protrayal of the MesoAmerican limited lands. They were not cornered, and they had a sizeable population remaining where in they could look to survival and life if they did flee to the distant lands. Lehi fled for his and his family's life from Jerusalem. Joseph and Mary fled for their life to the Land of Egypt. Noah fled in an ark for the lives of his family. There is no shame if self preservation. And people of the Nephites were doing just that in the Traditional Model, no death wish therein. They were fleeing for their very lives to the fullest extend that the land would reasonably allow.

But if you are in Central America with all the rest of Mexico and the entire land area of the great plains, the west, and all of the land of the United States, which by the way is a part of the land choice above all other lands, why make a final ditch effort stand just 100 to 200 miles from the narrow neck and allow yourselves to be destroyed by the overwhelming enemy. It just doesn't make sense. But this is what the MesoAmerican theorist propose. Mormon reported that they hoped to gain an 'advantage' (Mormon 6:4) over the Lamanites. What advantage is there to position yourselves within a week or so journey near to the enemy's homelands where they can readily obtain support and reinforcements? What advantage is there to allow them to be in familiar surroundings? The Lamanites where known for their wearing of little clothing. There would be much more advantage to fight as far away from the resources of the Lamanites as possible and in the mists of the last resources that you have. It would be to an advantage to be familiar with the land and not have your enemy know anything about it. It would be an advantage to make your enemy as uncomfortable and ill prepared for the weather conditions as possible. The land of Cumorah was all of these. It was a far, far distant from the homeland resources of the Lamanite. It was a foreign land to them. It was a land which they where not prepared to exist in, being a cold winter seasonal type of land. Many of the Nephites who had been living in this region, would help the migrant Nephites adjust to the land. The Lamanites had many disadvantages in the lands of Cumorah in the state of New York. In deed, despite being significantly out numbered, the Nephites did have some realistic source of hope to have an advantage over the Lamanites in the Land of Cumorah of New York state. There were no such real advantages in the proposed MesoAmerican Cumorah that the Nephites had over the Lamanites.

The MesoAmerican Theorists propose, that Mormon's Nephites, after being chased around and around the Central Ameican lands just north of the narrow neck within a radius of a couple hundred miles for ten years, conveniently gather the last half million or so of themselves to be destroyed. Some great military plan, huh? The assumption is that all the remaining Nephites, every last one, with thousands of miles of land to flee to, just can't think of anything better to do than to met the Lamanites in a war of suicide and self-annihilation. There is just no strategy in it. It just doesn't make sense. Given the MesoAmerican scenario, there are just too many realistic alternatives to be considered and live, rather than to just lay yourselves on a sacrificial platter just to be devoured.

Why would the Nephites, under Mormon or anyone agree to locate all their remaining people, a half million or so of them, just a week or so travel from all the lands of support of the Lamanites? Not only that, the Nephites would have had to box themselves in, allowing themselves no avenue of retreat by picking a hill with its back to the ocean and a land of many waters just to the north. What General would voluntarily place themselves in such a cornered position? With all of the lands of the United States and Northern Mexico open to their retreat, why would you return to a hill within a couple of hundred miles of the support lands of your enemy? And why would you box yourself in knowing full well that they totally out number you and will easily completely destroy you? Mormon knew that the Lord would not help support the Nephites in their wickedness, so his strategy was not to rely on that. Mormon's only strategy was to out think and out maneuver them. The proposed Hill Cumorah in MesoAmerica had no such strategic advantage. Talk about an illogical death wish totally lacking any advantage.

I can't believe this of Captain Mormon. He is just too good of a military man to give his people and troops up so easily. With all the central lands of North America to retreat to, why would Mormon serve up his people whom he had tried so hard to preserve while there yet loomed hope and avenues of escape? The reasoning is just not there.

Now on the other hand. If Mormon and his Nephtes had been pursued for over 3000 miles and 10 years into the northeastern corner of the United States relentlessly, and having no realistic avenue of retreat and escape but the frozen northland and the Atlantic Ocean to be pushed into, then there is grounds for one last desperate act. And that is what Mormon's decision was based on. Given the alternatives of no further escape for his people, the Nephites, there just wasen't any other choice than to stand and fight. It was a last ditch effort for sure, with a few manipulated advantages but still with little hope. But there was not any real alternatives like there would have been if the Hill Cumorah had been just 200 miles north of the narrow neck of land with all of Mexico and the United States in arrears. In that situation they had hundreds of miles of land and places to disperse to, flee to , regroup in, and live in for years to come given the MesoAmerican scenario. With a half million people or so and a whole other land to populate and redevelop yourselves in, why would you take the alternative to commit immediate suicide? The reasoning is just not there.

Only with the Hill Cumorah being associated with the Hill Cumorah in the state of New York do you have a set of circumstance that would justify Mormon's final desperate move for one last chance, gambling everything on it. You can forget all the arguments about just how far the Hill Cumorah is suppsed to be and just come down to this one question, 'With all of Northern America to flee to and populate, why would Mormon gather up the remaining half million Nephttes in a 'death wish' last stand only a week's journey from the lands of the Lamanites where they could speedily draw upon their entire population resource to insure the utter destruction of the Nephites? John L. Sorenson also states that like the Jaredites that took 4 years to recruit their population to one side or the other, it took Mormon four years to gather his people which where supposedly confined to a land the size of the state of Utah. If Mormon had fours years time, why weren't the half million people population taken to the distant North American lands for safety rather than being gathered for slaughter. It just doesn't make sense.

John L. Sorenson also states that the Book of Mormon can only be intrepreted to present a limited land in MesoAmerica and a Hill Cumorah within a week's journey from the narrow neck. Well, that I suppose depends on how you read and interpret the Book of Mormon. Facts are strange things when they are bent to fit what you want them to fit. Take the following reference for example about the land containing large bodies of water and many rivers.

In respect to the Nephite's first colonization of the lands north of the narrow neck of land the Book of Mormon says, "And they did travel to an exceedingly great distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of water and many rivers ." (Helaman 4:3) Large bodies, which is plural, of water is hardly one lake with a few rivers. Large bodies of water describes the Great Lakes region of the United States. And an 'exceedingly great distance' is not a matter of a week's journey of a couple of hundred miles when a Nephite can cross a 100-mile isthmus in a day and a half. Even the vast Zulu army could march on a run for 50 miles in a day and fight a battle at the end of their march. So in view of the MesoAmerican's proposed Cumorah location, perhaps the preferred interpretive reply should be, but that wasn't Cumorah, that was some other place that was far, far away. But then the Mesoamerican theory does not allow for a population of the Nephites to be out side of the limit Mesoamerican area to begin with. In either case, the Meosamerican theory is not consistant with what the Book of Mormon says. And I believe that this land of large bodies of water with many rivers is Cumorah, it is the Great Lakes, and it is in New York state where Cumorah has always been since the beginning of the Chruch.

'One last Doctrinal Key' might be suggested in light of a recent article published which associates the people of Sumer's Ziggurat Towers with the towers built by the Christ fearing Nephites. It can be easily conceded that the Jaredites where familiar with the 'Ziggurat' step pyramid tower, of which most likely was the Tower of Babel. So also it is obvious that the various Lamanite factions constituting the Inca, Maya, Toltec, Aztec, Mississippi Mound Builders, their ancestors and others, all had knowledge of the pyramidal ziggurat. Whether that came from the Jaredite exposure, from the Brass Plates, or from other passed on knowledge is all feasible. What is not so feasible is that God, after condemning the Ziggurat Tower of Babel, would authorize such as part of the Nephite society and their worship of Him. Sure, if MesoAmerica is assigned to be the very limited lands of the Book of Mormon, there are the pyramidal towers both north and south of the narrow neck. And such who believe this theory would like to associate any tower erected for any purpose with such a 'ziggurat' pyramid just to help support their theory. But temple mounts such as in Jerusalem and hills upon which a number of our temples are build upon today are not ziggurat towers. Ziggurat towere where and are built for corrupt worship of false gods. And the Lamanite factions who have built them in MesoAmerica carried out human sacrific and worship of false deities upon them just as did the people of Sumer. I believe it to be a 'Doctrinal Key' that the ziggurat towers of MesoAmerica are not of God, but built to false gods and for false worship. I believe that the true Christian Nephites did not built Ziggurats. King Benjamin's speak tower was not a massive Tower of Babel type stone ziggurat. It was a quickly erected wooden speaking platform built beside the temple so all could see him speak to his people. All the towers of the Nephites as recorded in the Book of Mormon are 'functional' towers. They are not 'Towers of Babel' reaching to heaven of great mass and size whose only purpose is for pagan worship and human sacrifice.

---

 

E-Mail to come

(REV. 9-14-11)