The Book of Mormon speaks of the 'Land of First Inheritance.' And there are a number of interpretations and understandings of the Land of First Inheritance, where it was located and what it is associated with. They will read the same Book of Mormon, and they will interpret what they read differently according to what their own conception of what the Book of Mormon Lands should be or has to be to meet their preconception of the Book of Mormon Lands.

And many will argue back and forth based on their own interpretation on the matter, which is a subjective argument based solely on what they have contrived. One will say that Lehi's party sailed down around Africa and across the Atlantic to the Eastern Coast of North America because that is what their Geography Theory demands. And then they will point out that Lehi's party would then have had to travel or journey in the land to the west to arrive at the Land of First Inheritance which by definition in the Book of Mormon is to the west of the Land of Nephi, on the western sea's coast. Then those of another Geography Theory demand that, that reasoning is not consistent with the Book of Mormon. Because of their 'interpretation,' they have associated the Land of Lehi's Landing as being interchangeable and the same as the Land of First Inheritance. Some will even take their own theories and interpretations beyond the logic and correlation with what the Book of Mormon says at all. Such are the 'Traditional' Hemisphere theorist who try to maintain that, yes the Land of Lehi's landing in Chili, and the Land of First Inheritance where the same, though they will later place the land of Nephi in Peru which is north and not east of the land of First Inheritance as the Book of Mormon itself stipulates.

So who is right and who is wrong in all this matter concerning the Land of First Inheritance, where it was located, and with what should it be associated with. Well, I would suggest that the first step is to wipe that slate clean of any past personal 'preconceptions' and any statements by anyone else, and just read what is in the Book of Mormon as objectively as possible, and see what it really does or does not say. Some times that is not easy to do. When one has a predisposed conjectured opinion on a matter, it is not easy to let loose of it, and just take the book at its word, but we will make the attempt.

Our first stop will be at the universally famous chapter 22 of Alma, which all geographical theorist are most assuredly familiar with.

28 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.

Now this verse is quite clear as to the placement of the 'Land of First Inheritance. It is on the west in the land of Nephi. Yet a few observations should be made to completely clarify the issue of what exactly is the 'objective' position of this particular reader, meaning myself. You see, even an objective reading can vary depending on the basis upon which it is read. First it should be noted that from my objective position, there is the over all general 'Land of Nephi' or 'Nation of Nephi' at the date of between 90 and 77 BC. That is the approximate footnote date of Alma 22 as referenced in the Book of Mormon. So Nephi included everything south of the narrow strip of wilderness between the over all general land or nation of Zarahemla and the nation of Nephi. Zarahemla was generally the Nephite nation at that juncture in time, and Nephi was basically the Lamanite nation at the juncture in time. Prior to about 90 BC, when Nephi took his group and departed into the wilderness according to the direction and warnings of the Lord to leave the 'Land of First Inheritance,' the more 'limited' land of Nephi then would have that occupied by Nephi's small colony. It is from this generalized concept of the Land of First Inheritance running all along the western coast of the later greater nation of Nephi in 90 BC, that we have a quasi objective understanding that Nephi's earlier lands were to the east and inland from the original Land of First Inheritance dating some 500 years earlier. Other than this general east-west relationship, and the fact that both the original Land of Nephi and the Land of First Inheritance was generally south beyond the 'narrow strip of wilderness' which divided the two generalized nations in 90 BC, we do not have many specifics regarding the land of Nephi which sets out a precise mapping of that land.

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.

Now, it seems some choose to confuse the issue by purposefully muddling what little facts we have from the Book of Mormon. They will do this when what the Book of Mormon says is not what they want it to say. So they muddle or muddy the issue, and thus allow themselves to ignore what the book does say. In verse 28, they will try to point out that the Lamanites were on the west of Nephi and Zarahemla. And they will try to confuse the issue by an 'interpretive' assumption that, therefore it is not clear that the 'Land of First Inheritance' was only on the west of Nephi, as it could have also been west of Zarahemla. But that is not what was said. The wording of verse 28 may have been a bit awkward. But in terms of sentence structure and stated information, it is quite clear to the objective reader who has no predetermined agenda, that it states that the Land of First Inheritance was just west of the Land of Nephi. In fact, if one considers how an 'engraver' of metal plates would have had to engrave, even the awkwardness of the verse becomes quite understandable. That is, yes the Lamanites were at that time living both in the Land of First Inheritance which was west of Nephi, and in the western wilderness of Zarahemla. So once the engraver stated the Lamanites were live in the lands west of both nations, the only way to clarify that the Land of First Inheritance was only on the west of Nephi, was to awkwardly add it in as a clarifying point. He certainly could not have gone back and erased his engraving.

The map shown at the right is meant to be a generic general picture of what this relationship between the Land of Nephi and the Land of First Inheritance. The Nation of Zarahemla is to the north. The narrow strip of wilderness divides the two nations, The Nation of Nephi is to the south and the Land of First Inheritance is running along the western sea coast of the Nation of Nephi. And the large red 'X' is the site of Lehi's Landing just south of the Isthmus of Darien according to the text, The Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 267. Those who would prefer an alternate Landing Site can image the red 'X' any where they would like, but the point being made is that the Book of Mormon does absolutely support a separate Landing Site for Lehi than where the location is for the Land of First Inheritance. The concept of the 'Land of First Inheritance' would be consistant with the timing of Lehi's blessing to all his sons, including the sons of Ishmael. That is a likely time that the 'Land Inheretances' was conceptualized as being 'Lands of Inheritance' though all the lands in the brand new 'promised land' where perfectly open to the taking.

And now we come to the next matter, which seems to provoke arguments supposedly justified by what the Book of Mormon does or does not clearly state. I was on the Debate Team in High School. We were given a topic for discussion which had two opposing views. You didn't know which side you would be debating until just prior to when you would start the debate. From that experience, I soon learned that the question was not who was 'right' or 'wrong,' as each side had its logical set of facts and circumstances which would support it. What did matter was who could most skillfully present their facts in the most influencing manner. Thus is the matter of the Geography of the Book of Mormon. The Church does not give any official mapping to the Book of Mormon mapping. So the truth of the matter is unknown. And regardless of that 'unknown truth' each theory will have its own derived set of 'facts' and 'logic' which supports it. And just like the days of debate, the winner is not determined by the 'truth' of the matter, but by who can set out their map in the most influencial manner. This is what is most disappointing to me regarding FARMS. FARMS has seeming settled upon the most 'influencial' argument based upon 'Intellectual' postion and just how well a match can be made accroding to the 'theories and wisdom of man' regardless of the truth of the matter, Now truth is not always that which is most logical and defendable in a 'debate atomosphere' where the locgic, reasoning, dissections, and analysis of men rules. According to the 'wisdom' of man, how reasonable is the Creation of Adam, the Flood of Noah, the Dividing of the Earth in the days of Peleg, the Dividing of the Red Sea by Moses, the Barges of the Jaredites, the 'Conveyance of Lehi and Mulek' to the Americas, and any number of things we know to be true from the scriptures? According to the knowledge, wisdom, dissection, analysis, reasoning, and logic of man, these things are 'naught' in the eyes of the learned. Thus, just because a Book of Mormon Geography appears to be most locgical because of who and how it is being presented, does not mean that is the 'truth of the matter.' And when God reveals what it is, now matter how 'illogical' it may or may not seem to the 'wisdom' of the learned, it will be true. And thus my disappiont that FARMS does not have research being done under each of the major conceptual Book of Mormon Geography Theories. For they are all just theories at this point. And no matter how well they current trend of argument is, the truth will out in the end. And in my own 'open minded' consideration, yes I do have a prefered opinion, but if God's answer is not my answer, then I would most certainly change. And I would at least like to be knowledgable and have considered each of the possibilities, rather than to have argued against what might just eventually prove to be the truth, regardless of all my finely tuned logic on the matter which proved just the opposite. As an objective research organization, considering and researching all possibilities honestly,

I would have thought that FARMS would be actively pursueing each school of thought in an unbiased, open minded, fair, and intellectual manner even if one particular school of thought seems 'more logical' by men's set of standards. For what men have and will set out to be the 'truth,' regardless of how forcefully, the truth is what is true even if it does not meet men's logic. Just how logical from the stand point of men of science is the Atonement of Christ? Yet it is. And just because one set of facts as currently being generated by the contrivance of 'men' discredit the rest, until the truth be known, it does not make it so. Have we not learned even that yet? I don't remember if the truth of my High School debate topic was ever settled one way or the other. I barely recall the topic. And it was one that did not make that much difference to really worry about. But I do know that I both won and lost on either side of the issue during the various meets we had while competing with the other schools. That seemed sad to me, that the current 'winners' in life where those who could argue the best regardless of the truth of the matter. And it would appear that FARMS is not above that level of pursuit either.

Thus such open mindedness does not prevail at FARMS. But here I will attempt as 'objective' a reading from the pages of the Book of Mormon as possible by one who has to have some thought on the matte. And I will try not to bring any personal bias to that objectivity which would 'twist' the words into a personally preferred reading of the book even though as in the previous map, to graphically represent the point being made, I did have to put the 'X' of Lehi's Landing somewhere to illustrate the Land of Lehi's Landing being somewhere other than the Land of First Inheritance. So I put it just south of an Isthmus as suggested by someone else who I do believe in. But I would hope not to set forth such in a manner and to the point of ingnoring just how each theory might be able to so use such information objectively rather than so subjectively to be so unreasonably preclude an opposing theory by presupposing a 'personal interpretation' to be what the Book of Mormon does say. For like the High School debate issues, read from different perspectives, one can contrive variant meanings to the words of the book beyond what the book does state. And such is not basing upon solid factual matter. Such is basing opinion upon opinion (personal interpretation), which can logically prove just about any thing you want to prove, regardless of the truth of the matter.

Lehi's Landing and the Land of First Inheritance

In 1879, the Book of Mormon was rearranged into the a more standard form in which people where accustomed to see and using 'scripture' in. And that was into 'Chapters' and 'Verses' rather than in just common paragraph form. When first published, the Book of Mormon was divided in a smaller number of chapters with standard paragraphs, which gave it more of the appearance of being a 'Novel' rather than as being 'Scripture.' And all who where familiar with the Bible, and the easy of reference to the material there in by Chapter and Verse, saw a lack of such convenience in the form in which the Book of Mormon had been published. Thus when Apostle Orson Pratt undertook the assignment of divided the first published book into verses and additional segmentation into more chapters, it was deemed a great advancement in the usability of the Book of Mormon. It would now take on more of the appearance of scripture and it would have that added convenience of studying and referring to the book by chapter and verse. And that justifiably was herald as a great advancement. And so it was.

But did altering the previous logical thought arrangement of the book's text lose anything? It certainly would have that possibility. If one removes a continuous train of thought by ending one chapter in the middle of it and segmenting the two adjacent thoughts into two separate chapters, then certainly that could alter the perception of what is being said. In the common English arrangement of sentences, paragraphs, and chapters, immediate thought patterns are usually confined to paragraphs as long as the paragraph does not become two long. And related thought patterns are grouped together by adjoining paragraphs. And when a major topic area of discussion is complete, and it is time to move on to another major topic area, a new chapter is used. Thus, what was previously an 'adjoining' thought patterns could be disrupted by the creation of a new chapter which would disrupt the continuous flow of the thought and possibly yield questions relative to what was really being said.

Now, though Elder Orson Pratt did do a commendable work in his verse and new chapter segmentation of the Book of Mormon, in some instances, this has happened. What previously would have been a 'continuous thought pattern' is not divided into separate chapters. And on occasion, what was in separate paragraphs, clearly delineating immediate thought relevance, is now in verses, which no longer indicate where the original paragraphs began and ended. Such is the case in terms of Chapters 18 and 19 of 1 Nephi and the related verses at the end and beginning of those two chapters of today. In the original translated form of the Book of Mormon, it was all in the same chapter, denoting a continuous train of thought patterns which is not divided by chapters. And how the related verses where originally arranged in related immediate thought continuity of relationships, is not segmented into verses, giving rise to questions of debate by person interpretation about just what immediately related to what and what did not. Thus, I feel it is the most objective to return to the original publication of the Book of Mormon, and read the related material as it was arranged and approved by the prophet then, to best attempt to perceive what was being said from Joseph's translation. After all, what could it hurt?

And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did guide the ship, that we sailed again towards the promised land. And it came to pass that after we had sailed for the space of many days we did arrive at the promised land; and we went forth upon the land, and did pitch our tents; and we did call it the promised land. And it came to pass that we did begin to till the earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our seeds into the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem. And it came to pass that they did grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were blessed in abundance.

And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.

And it came to pass that the Lord commanded me, wherefore I did make plates of ore that I might engraven upon them the record of my people. And upon the plates which I made I did engraven the record of my father, and also our journeyings in the wilderness, and the prophecies of my father; and also many of mine own prophecies have I engraven upon them. And I knew not at the time when I made them that I should be commanded of the Lord to make these plates; wherefore, the record of my father, and the genealogy of his fathers, and the more part of all our proceedings in the wilderness are engraven upon those first plates of which I have spoken; wherefore, the things which transpired before I made these plates are, of a truth, more particularly made mention upon the first plates.

Now, by reading the text as first published and approved, and as closest to the translated intent, consider what an objective reading of the forgoing three paragraphs does yield. Paragraph 1: The sailed ship arrives in the promised land, Lehi's party disembarks and sets up camp in the promised land, they till the earth, plant seeds, and bring forth an exceedingly abundant harvest. Paragraph 2: Then they journey in the wilderness finding beasts of every kind both domestic and wild, and they find all manner of ore, gold, silver, and copper. Paragraph 3: Then the Lord commands Nephi to make the Large Plates of Nephi, it contains the record of Lehi, and a record of their journeyings in the wilderness, but this record we are reading is the Small Plates of Nephi and Nephi states that the more part of our proceedings in the wilderness are engraved on the Large Plates and not on the Small Plates.

By the association of the logic of English paragraph building, a more clear and objective reading may be obtained. When Lehi landed, they set up a base camp for the plating and replenishing of their food and seed supply. But like most all successful colonization efforts, they did not stay in that land of their base camp. The second paragraph then points out that after that initial cultivation and harvest, Lehi's party did journey in the wilderness. They journeyed at length finding beast of every kind both domestic and wild. And their journey was an extended, extensive journey, as they did also prospect out many metal ore deposits through the lands which they traveled through such as gold, silver, and copper. And then in paragraph three, once they have journeyed from the Land of Lehi's Landing and their base camp to the Land of First Inheritance, the Lord commands Nephi, while Lehi is yet alive, to make his own record, the record of the Large Plates of Nephi. That is how the logic of the paragraphs divide the information originally. It is set out in three separate chapters. The plating and harvesting are removed and separated by a new paragraph from journey in the wilderness, indicating that the activities are not immediately associated with each other, but just that of the next phase of the over all train of events. And then the command to write the record and Nephi's explanation why there is no details of their wilderness journey in his small plates does follows directly after the single highly concentrated and abridged paragraph that tells just a little of what they did during that wilderness journey. And that is the continuous event by event logic pattern of thought that is interrupted by placing the records commandment in chapter 19 and segmenting it from the journey recorded just previous at the end of chapter 18.

Now those who read the Book of Mormon in its current form of verses and chapters begin to argue what should be associated and related to each though and just how. Thus they inter mix what is in two separate paragraphs as all happening at the one location of Lehi's Landing. They associate the finding of the animals and ores as mere daily jaunts in the forest round about the tent encampment of Lehi's Landing. Thus they argue their interpretation of Lehi's Landing and the Land of First Inheritance being one in the same land, according to what best suits their theory, as opposed to what is said in the Book of Mormon. And then they completely disassociate the wilderness journeyings, which they have made into daily jaunts, from those which Nephi states are not given in any detail in his Small Plates. As they, by the virtue of separations of chapters, now argue what is in Chapter 19 does not related directly back to Chapter 18, but it is the journey from Jerusalem to the sight where Nephi builds the ship. The make this association to service their theory, even though Nephi had given a somewhat lengthy telling of those travels and journeys in his record.

Now, from this objective perspective, when Sister Olive of the 'Limited US Theory' says she believes that Lehi's party landed on the east coast of America and would have then traveled from that landing site to the Land of First Inheritance, she is completely justified by the objective content of what the Book of Mormon does state. But when the Mesoamerican theorist argues that the site of Lehi's Landing and the Land of First Inheritance has to be the same site, that is a matter of personal opinion, which is not supported by the words of the Book of Mormon. In fact, there is little or no reason why the Mesoamerican theorist could not accept the statement which President Joseph Fielding Smith attributes to the Prophet Joseph Smith of a landing site a little south of the Isthmus of Darien. The only perceived reason that they don't is that they are so busy defending their 'Limited Middle America' theory, that they made every attempt they can to disassociate it from anything that might be used in an 'opposing theory.' Which to me is a nonproductive attitude, because it can lead to disregarding truth just because it could also fit something they have force themselves into totally rejecting. That is to say, just because it is one of the sites used by those who associate the narrow neck being in the Panama region, they reject the landing site, when it really could even be a real possibility which would still allow their own narrow neck and their own 'Middle America - Mesoamerica Theory.

And Then There is Logic

Then another subject ploy used by those to defend their position, especially the 'logic of the Land of Lehi's Landing' being the 'Land of First Inheritance,' is that of the 'logic' of the matter apart from the Book of Mormon. Just how subjective logic can be is easily seen when it is selective to only the 'facts' that support their case while ignoring other more objective facts which do not. For example, one of the logical defenses that state 'surely the two lands are the same because aged and old Lehi would not be up to journeying hundreds of miles after just completing such a long ocean voyage.' Such supposed logical arguments sound more like excuses and completely ignore comparative cases and truly relevant facts. First, lets see, Lehi would have been seventy-ish. And after a season of planting and harvesting he is not ready to travel great distances in the new promised land whether the Liahona and God would take him?

Just how old was Moses, who was already old at the beginning of the forty years in the wilderness? It isn't as if Lehi had just completed over a thousand mile trek through the deserts in the old world just a couple of years before, and now all of a sudden he is too old and feeble? Lets see another case, Mormon was born about 311 AD, and he lead and fought in the battle at Cumorah in 385 AD at age 74. That's pretty good for an old man. And Mormon went on to fight another day, as his son Moroni reports that Mormon was later killed in another battle with the Lamanites (Mormon 8:3 & 5). Think of it, 74, severly wounded in the battle at Cumorah (Mormon 6:10) and still afterward traversing the countryside and fighting Lamanites. Just what is age anyway when such logic is suppose to be the object fact of the matter when there are so many exceptions. And what about Abraham, he was still herding the flocks and having Isaac as a child with a wife age ninety and he was much older than Sarah? If one carefully figures the Nephite timeline, some of those Prophets of the Book of Mormon where living well beyond 100 years of age in order to made that timeline work. So just because being aged doesn't disqualify Lehi from journeying in the wilderness in the new promised land as the Book of Mormon states they did.

What would be more objective logic is to consider just how many successful colonies were founded by the first arriving colonist in a brand new land who settled and stayed at their very first place they landed. Let see there is Roanoke and the stories of Virginia Dare, that is a lost colony story. There is the ill-fated first colonies of Columbus and how successful they where, NOT! What is interesting in the Book of Mormon, is that the wilderness lands round about where Lehi landed where 'forested lands' which when they began to travel in them, were found an abundance of beast. It was not an arid dryer land. It was not a land which they were use to. It was not a land like they had been living in and learning to survive in for over the last number of years, which would have including planting and testing of the seeds in such arid lands. It was not the type of land they had spent their lifes preparing to live in. And as part of my consideration, Lehi's journey from the landing site, beside being what the Lord would have directed, would be to take Lehi out of the forested rain forests of what would have been the wilderness of Hermounts, and bring them south to a more seasonably suitable climate which they would have been prepared to live in along the western coast of Peru where irrigation and a more arid climate was the norm, rather than the deep forests of a tropical humid jungle which Lehi's Landing place was in. Now that is 'subjective logic' of what I believe is true, but at least it doesn't violated what the Book of Mormon states as does the concept of Lehi being too old to travel when the Book of Mormon states that he did journey in the wilderness finding animals and metal ore deposits.

Summary

In conclusion, let me make some summary statements. First, the concept that the 'Land of Lehi's Landing' is the same as the 'Land of First Inheritance' is not an 'assumption' supported by any words of the Book of Mormon. It is a product of not being able to read a very condensed abridged history, understanding tht events were happening in and abbreviated fashion and not being able to be ingenious enough to 'reconstitute' the condensation mentally picturing them spread back out over time and space. And it is an 'interpretive' contrivance used by those who force a fit to their theory in a defensive manner in opposition to any other possibility.

And in my personal belief, that the facts Book of Mormon are very consistent and supportive of the concept of the Land of Lehi's Landing being removed from the Land of First Inheritance by the distance of many miles. And that is was a long wilderness journey in which all manner of beast where found and gathered, and all manner of ore was located. Nephi even explains why we don’t have any further details of that promised land wilderness journey. Those details are in the Large Plates but he did not write them in the Small Plates, as they likely seemed to lack a spiritual contribution to his Small Plate Record. And that notion is supported by later Book of Mormon corroborative such as indications in Alma 37.

38 And now, my son, I have somewhat to say concerning the thing which our fathers call a ball, or director--or our fathers called it Liahona, which is, being interpreted, a compass; and the Lord prepared it.
39 And behold, there cannot any man work after the manner of so curious a workmanship. And behold, it was prepared to show unto our fathers the course which they should travel in the wilderness.
40 And it did work for them according to their faith in God; therefore, if they had faith to believe that God could cause that those spindles should point the way they should go, behold, it was done; therefore they had this miracle, and also many other miracles wrought by the power of God, day by day.
41 Nevertheless, because those miracles were worked by small means it did show unto them marvelous works. They were slothful, and forgot to exercise their faith and diligence and then those marvelous works ceased, and they did not progress in their journey;
42 Therefore, they tarried in the wilderness, or did not travel a direct course, and were afflicted with hunger and thirst, because of their transgressions.

Now while what Alma states here to Helaman does apply to the events in the wilderness of the old world and the events of the sea voyage, the flavor here seems to hint that there where more occasions upon which the Liahona did not work when their 'fathers' (plural), where slothful and forgot to exercise their faith properly. Now Alma used the plural form of the word 'fathers' and Laman and Lemuel where not the fathers of Alma's sons. So which other fathers could Alma have been referencing? Perhaps even Nephi was human enough to have to 'learn' how to properly use the Liahona, and perhaps even Nephi, as righteous and as 'wretched' (2 Nephi 4:17) as he was, would forget sometimes to exercise proper faith in the Liahona.

And those who choose to maintain the faith on the Chilean landing site, are much better served by there being a journey of distance from the site of Lehi's Landing to the Land of First Inheritance. As the distance from the middle of the coast of Chili, to where the other lands of the Nephites and Lamanites were in Peru and Colombia, according to the Traditional Hemispheric Model, certainly demand such logic and distance.

As for my own view, the 'Neo-Traditional' model which uses the Darien landing site, it certainly is needed that they travel south to the western coast of Peru to establish the Land of First Inheritance and later the Land of Nephi there, south of Zarahemla. Which brings me to one last disclosure. No where but in contrived opinion does it state that the Nephites continually traveled north from their original landing site to their eventual site of demise at the Hill of Cumorah. It sounds good and has been taught. But the Book of Mormon does not state or even imply such. Now the Book of Mormon might be used in logical and objective discussion to imply that from the land of Nephi to Zarahemla, then to Bountiful, then to the City of Desolation, and through out the Nephite's last 10 year retreat it was a northward course, it cannot be used in an objective manner to say that the journey from the site of Lehi's Landing to the Land of First Inheritance was a northward course. And there is much logic and information which would support the site of Lehi's Landing being just south of the Isthmus of Darien and their journey from there was southward, but that is for another page and time.

---