Book of Mormon Nephite Destruction Outline (narrow neck exodus)

Summary of cities:
Jordan (northmost city. part of line of cities defending north country)
Boaz (gets rest of records)


Teancum (by seashore & desolation)
Desolation (dead cast into sea)
Shem (fortified)
Jashon (gets records)
Joshua (west by seashore)

David, Land of
Angola (fortified city, first retreat after Z.)
Zarahemla (war starts)

– 321 AD Moroni gets instructions to go to hill Shim in the Land Antum to get records (Mormon 1:3)

-Moroni “carried by his father into the land southward, even to the land of Zarahemla”. (Mormon 1:7)

-War begins “in the borders of Zarahemla, by the waters of Sidon”. (first battle, also 321 AD)  Mormon 1:10

-A number of battles fought, then a truce for four to seven years.

-Lamanites attack again, Nephites retreat “toward the north counties” 2:3

-Moroni’s army take and fortify Angola “with their might”, but “notwithstanding their fortifications”, the city is taken.2:4

-They are “also” driven out of the land David. (unsure if Angola was in the land David or if its the next province to the north) 2:5

-They gather to Joshua which is “west by the seashore”. Mormon 2:6-8  A battle with a force of 40,000 each is fought here… Lamanites retreat.

-345AD. Lamanites attack again, Nephites retreat to city of Jashon, “near the land [Antum] where Ammaron had deposited the records”. Moroni gets just the plates of Nephi, and leaves the remainder “where they are”. (Mormon 2:17)

-Nephites driven “northward to the land which was called Shem”. 2:20   Nephites fortify the city and are attacked in 346AD, but win a battle with 30k to 50k. 2:25

-In 350AD a treaty is made. Lamanites “ give unto us the land northward, yea, even to the narrow passage which led into the land southward. And we did give unto the Lamanites all the land southward.” Mormon 2:29

-For 10 years, Nephites fortify and prepare. In 360AD Mormon causes his “people that they should gather themselves together at the land Desolation, to a city which was in the borders, by the narrow pass which led into the land southward.  6 And there we did place our armies, that we might stop the armies of the Lamanites, that they might not get possession of any of our lands; therefore we did fortify against them with all our force. 7 And it came to pass that in the three hundred and sixty and first year the Lamanites did come down to the city of Desolation to battle against us”. Nephites beat them. They come again the next year. They beat them a third time. “and their dead were cast into the sea.” Mormon 3:8

Desolation is by the sea or a river that flows into sea

-in 363AD, the Nephites go on the offensive, up out of desolation, but are driven back to “the land of Desolation” (not city). Then Lamanites attack, and take the city of desolation “slaying many and taking many prisoners”. Mormon 4:2

-”And the remainder did flee and join the inhabitants of the city Teancum. Now the city Teancum lay in the borders by the seashore; and it was also near the city Desolation.”

Teancum is also somewhat near the sea.

-364AD, Lamanites come against Teancum, and are repulsed, so Nephites follow them and retake Desolation. 4:8

Desolation and Teancum are close to each other

-In 366AD Lamanites attack and take Desolation, and then Teancum (and sacrifice the inhabitants both women and children.)  Nephites are so angry about the loss of their families they retake the cities and drive the Lamanites out of the land. Then another 10 year pause in fighting (Mormon 4:16)

-In 375AD, the Lamanites come down to desolation with a numberless host.

The Lamanite attack base is UP from desolation and Teancum. (3:7, 4:17-19 Lamanites come down to desolation. V.1-4 Nephites go up out of desolation to battle Nephites. This makes a northern neck or cerro trinchera location problematic for desolation and the narrow neck. Perhaps likewise for Mazatlan…Nayarit and Amapa seem more likely.)

-Nephites flea to Boaz and fight two battles. On second attack they flea and women and children are sacrificed again. Nephites flea and “all the inhabitants with them, both in towns and villages” (Mormon 4:22)

-”Seeing the Lamanites were about to overthrow the land”, Mormon goes to the hill Shim and takes up ALL the records. Mormon 4:23

Boaz is still relatively close to all the preceding cities? (Antum, Jashon, Desolation). V.10-23 really gives that impression. It’s like they don’t go far from Desolation to Boaz… but once boaz is taken they “overthrow the land” and everyone flees are far way to Jordan. (Jordan could now be the southwest, since this are flees and is burned”.

-in 379AD Nephites flee to Jordan, and repulse a Lamanite attack. 3:4  They maintain a line of stronghold cities “that they could not get into the country which lay before us, to destroy the inhabitants of our land.” (Mormon 5:4)

Jordan is likely in the Southwest, one of a line of cities defending the land northward.

-in 384 AD Mormon sends a letter to Lamanites requesting to gather to the land of Cumorah “in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains;”  People finish gathering in 384 AD  (Mormon 6:2,5–6)

-401 to 421 Moroni finishes writing the rest of the book and hides it up.

Some thoughts on dates in the final retreat and battle:

Note that the Jewish Metonic cycle adds seven intercalary years (leap year) every 19 years.  So one roughly every 2.7 years.  In strangely similar to the prodigious use of 18,19 & 20 in the Mayan Calendar.  I suspect the Baha’i calendar may be closer to the way the ancient Mesoamerican and ancient Israelites did it, than the current calender’s.

If this is true… It may be that the Nephites after Christ’s time counted a “prophetic year” (or one of their calendars) as roughly every 2.7 – 3 true sidereal years.  Which is a possible explanation for the discrepancy between Carbon dates for cultural collapses and BOM dates.  So 321 AD would be coincide with 963ish AD and 380 AD would coincide with 1140ish AD. Making both Anasazi and Cahokia dates work. Probably more likely though, that either C14 dates are skewed or the records the authors were working off of, were wrong or misunderstood.’

Book of Mormon and the Seer Stone

Arguments For and Against the Authenticity of the Book of Mormon

Book of Mormon and the Seer Stone

Book of Mormon and the Seer Stone

Neutral Arguments

-the arguments concerning animal anachronisms and metal anachronisms aren’t very good in my opinion.  They really could go either way. On one hand they seem anachronistic because you might think Joseph “didn’t know” that there weren’t horses or cows or swords in ancient America. On the other hand, many of the supposed anachronism ARE things a 17th century author likely would have known about ancient America, and yet they put them in there anyway–only to be later proven correct (copper, ziff, swords, early transoceanic travel, migration from the pacific coast, etc). Either way, the majority of these can mostly be explained by a loose translation. Overall the anachronism arguments seem to cancel each other out and be a neutral proof–unconvincing either for or against authenticity.

Crappy Arguments

-the idea that the Book was written so fast is proof of its truthfulness is a horrible argument. Many channeled texts which Mormon’s would have issue with, were written with incredible speed. Oahspe (supposedly channeled from light beings in 1850) is a great example. Over 1000  pages channeled in a number of weeks. The Urantia Bible and the writings of other people like Ellen White are other great examples. The aquarian gospel of Jesus Christ and many other exist as well. People who use this argument are unfamiliar with channeled literature.

Arguments Against

-CES letter issues such as word-for-word King James Bible language, and the mistakes in the King James Isaiah being propagated in the Book of Mormon are a pretty solid argument against authenticity—  There is little doubt the B.O.M. Isaiah chapters were copied straight from the King James, with only a couple changes made by the “translator as he went”. The chances of these being the originals are slim–if they were originals we would expect significant differences. The Dead Sea Scrolls version of Isaiah contains 2600 textual variants when compared with the Masoretic codex.[2]  We would expect at least as many, if not more in the Book of Mormon were it truly a 600BC text. The only viable explanation I can fathom is that the B.O.M. is an incredibly “loose” translation, where Joseph was required to come up with most of the words himself, getting only ideas psychically–with the exception of names and places which had to be spelled out in a very time consuming and difficult channeling process. Thus for simplicity and brevity, the Spiritual channels, passing the information to Joseph pulled the KJV text out of his mind (because Joseph had read it previously, and it existed in his sub-conscious). Note: The channeled work, The Law of One explains in more detail how this channeling works, and tediously “spells out” numbers.

-See Dan Vogel’s stuff on anti-universalism in the B.O.M.  The similarity in phraseology to other literature in Joseph’s day, makes it seem an awful lot like a product of his times.  At the same time however, is seems unlikely that Joseph would have been reading very much of the theological literature of his day… let alone be able to reproduce it.  Could this be evidence of some kind of ‘group consciousness’ aspect of channeling?  At any rate, the anit-universalism and Christology do NOT seem like anything that would have existed in an ancient text.  Could the Book of Mormon (like many channelings) be a mixture of things in Joseph’s mind, with things in the cultural ‘group mind’ of New England mixed perhaps with a true true history of ancient America?   (Note the similarities in Oahspe’s channeled account of ancient America, or the Law of One’s channeled accounts of the past, and the Book of Mormons.)

-The New Testament allusions in the Book of Mormon are incredibly suspect. Whether it be Moroni’s sermon on charity in Mor. 7:x, which shares exact phraseology with Paul, or whether it be the shared Pauline phraseology concerning “dead works” and baptism in Moroni 3-6.  There is a lot of the New Testament in the Book of Mormon.  These references seem to be obviously influenced by someone who had read the New Testament and was brought up in Anglo-Christian culture.  And they flow just like the Old Testament allusions. Really what are the chances that was written by chance in 400 AD Mesoamerica?  Find something in India or China like that… very unlikely. Frankly, the text reads incredibly like many of the Spanish Codices where true historical mexican histories and myth are being translated and transcribed into sixteenth century european Christianized language, format & culture.

-Verses that predict the three witnesses, and Anthon translation are crazy suspect.  Why would someone in 500 BC prophesy about that?  Its so inconsequential and asinine, it just fits the King James reading of Isaiah, why even put it in there?  I guess its possible, but seems lamely unprobable.

-Also the prophesy by “Joseph” saying another “Joseph” who is the son of Joseph will restore his words…. totally crazy. Joseph didn’t even prophesy about Christ or David or Moses… and yet he prophesies about Joseph Smith?  Not likely. These would have to be transcription injections by Joseph.

-Southpark’s ‘dum, da, dum, dum’ bit on why Joseph couldn’t just retranslate the ‘lost 116 pages’ is a really good point. The explanation given in the D&C that others changed these pages and were going to accuse Joseph that they didn’t match makes little sense.  The fact that he couldn’t reproduce the same pages is FAR more damning against the “translation’s” legitimacy than any “changed” text that Harris’s wives friends could have produced.

The only believable explanation I can find with these is the idea of a mixed “social memory complex” given in ‘The Law of One’.  (Essentially a group-consciousness of spirits or resurrected beings living in higher planes of existence or the shared mental realm of humanity itself).  Because there is such notable Anglo-Christian and Mesoamerican influence I could conceive that if a social memory complex existed in the heavens which was composed of both European/Anglo Christians and Mesoamericans (perhaps groups of deceased Mesoamericans who were taught by Spanish Bishops in the period between the Spanish Conquest of Mexico and Joseph Smith), and that if this group had an agenda wanting to publish their records and story and allowed both Joseph’s and their own ideas to be injected into the channeling.

-why didn’t Joseph just show people the actual plates? All the secrecy and the accounts that the 3 & 11 witnesses only saw the plates with an “eye of faith” or “spiritual vision”, is suspect. It makes me suspect Joseph also only saw the plates “in vision”.  Also the fact that he seems to have purposefully deceived people by using the hat and a “cover” to obscure the plates. Either this is the higher plane group trying to preserve the “free will distortion” spoken of in the Law of One, or there really was deceit going on here, which doesn’t speak well for the BOM’s authenticity.  The idea that “God took the plates” after Joseph was done is completely ridiculous.  If that was a possibility, then why didn’t god just take them from Moroni?  Then he could have given them to anyone, anytime in history afterwards. No need to wait until 1830 in New York; he could have done it in Mexico City in 1620 or Missouri in 1860, and avoided all the persecution and issues which came from Joseph supposedly digging them up only to constantly hide them. I think the Ankalan channeling is a perfect analog. Joseph really believed all his visions were real. But in order to get others to believe him, he constantly stretched the truth and used nebulous language to obscure the difference between visionary experiences and objectively real experiences.

Of course its also possible he wrote the B.O.M. and all his other “revelations” with a few friends from pure imagination. And made up the church and “kingdom” as he went. However, given that Xong Xiuquan “coincidentally” did almost the same thing in China in the same decade, with his “heavenly kingdom” and continental Taiping Rebellion seems even more implausible even with the above issues.

Arguments For

-the Book of Mormon’s allusion in the Bible are amazing. Whoever wrote it, knew the bible like a champ. Really in an almost impossible way. Nephi’s allusions to the cities of refuge in Leviticus, as a justification for why it was OK for him to slay Laban are so subtle.. who would have ever thought about that? And thats just one example of many.

-The mention of “elephants, curloms and cumoms” could be a pro (or neutral) argument to me. Mammoths were written about as early as 1722 by John Bell who explored the Ob River in Russia. Mammoths were first popularly described by German scientist Johann Friedrich Blumenback in 1799. And were well known enough that Thomas Jefferson used the world ‘Mammoth’ as an adjective in 1802. But it seems like a stretch that he would have decided to put them in the book as being “especially useful for the food of man”.  What are the chances that he knew that they (as well as other extinct megafauna) were a major food staple in the paleoindian diet, and that their extinction seems to be related to climate change (a dearth) and over hunting?  Why did he call them ‘Elephants’ instead of ‘Mammoths?’  Why invent these other crazy words ‘curelom and cumom’ to describe other animals that were ‘especially useful for the food of man’.

-The idea that Nephi sailed accross the pacific from the Indian Ocean instead of across the Atlantic like the pilgrims doesn’t fit what you’d expect a New Englander who was making up a novel would write.

-The fact that the arrival of true writing in Mesoamerica with the Zapotec script matches so well with my model for the Nephites is  a huge proof. (and that earlier Olmec script is so different).  And that it coincides so well with class stratification and and new system of government and stratified priestly ruling system in Monte Alban, with a two columned temple like Soloman’s.  Seriously crazy coincidences.

-The archaeological evidence concerning how Teotihuacahn was founded matches incredibly well with the story of Pahoran assembling all the people to one location in the Land of Zarahemla to defend against the Gandianton Robbers.

-The general fit of cultures in the Book of Mormon fits crazy well with the Zapotec, Highland Cultures and Mayan.  You couldn’t ask for a better fit.  The continental collapse of each culture from the Maya to the Toltec to the Anasazi and Mississippian between 700AD & 1400AD is an amazing coincidence. The Book of Mormon’s narrative for these downfalls it far better than the narrative believed by archaeologists currently. Only time will tell if the Carbon Dates could actually be skewed in the way they’d have to be— but I think the evidence sides better with the Book of Mormon (especially with the Anasazi rise and disappearance).

-The River Sidon the the Rio Balsas is an amazing fit… I don’t think Joseph would have been able to imagine anything but New England or Yucatan type rivers (far to large to cross without boats).  Yet his descriptions of the River Sidon fit perfectly with the arid, seasonal flow of Balsas as well as it being a major geographical boundary between the Nephite & Lamanite lands.

-If Joseph or some New Englander wrote the Book of Mormon with Mesoamerica in mind, (as the ‘Narrow Neck’ suggests) why didn’t they mention pyramids?  Why call them towers? The ‘tower’ and building project of King Noah fits so perfectly with Monte Alban, its uncanny.  But why not call them pyramids to better capture the imagination of his readers. He throws in the phrase ‘reformed Egyptian’, (which I think all New Englanders were captivated by the ‘Egyptian-like’ writing of Mesoamerica), why not call the towers what they undoubtedly would have been… pyramids?

-Why have two different groups coming to America (the Jaredites and Lehites). If you were making it up, wouldn’t you just have the Jaredites already be here? (like Oahspe does)  Why make them come from the ‘tower of Babel’? I guess I could see it either way on that one, but seems strange for anyone to have the Jaredites come in tight ‘dish-like’ boats and take so much longer than the Lehites and interact with elephants (mammoths), when all of that strongly contradicts the modern and ancient prevailing views.    And what are the chances that so much (circumstantial?) evidence of cuneiform would surface in North America? The Chief Joseph Tablet from 1877 and the Georgia (Hearn) Tablet from 1963 made from lead. The Shawnee Creek Stone from Oklahoma also seems to bare a resemblance to middle-eastern culture.


-In my opinion, because of these issues, if one is to have faith in any sort of divinity concerning the text, you’ve got to see it as a ‘channeled text’ instead of a revealed or translated text.  It needs to go in the same genre as other channeled texts like Oahspe, Urantia, D&C, or A Course in Miracles.  Joseph channeled it through his own mind or subconscious from some unknown source. He saw the ‘plates’ in vision just like the author of The Aklatan did. (see Did the Eleven Witnesses Actually See the Gold Plates?) He continually stretched the truth and led people to believe that his visions or both the plates and god were objective experiences, because he wanted people to believe them (as he thoroughly believed them). But like those other channeled texts, it has so many great truths that one could be justified as building a faith around the idea of there being divinity in the book (like the Bible, Koran, writings of Ellen White, or other religious texts with form a basis for a faith community). It seems entirely possible that it actually loosely depicts a true history of North America.  But one must accept it’s major issues and come to terms with the likelyhood that it is not a historical translation of an ancient text. I could see some ancient native religious/military leader converting to Western Christianity in the Spirit World and then working through Joseph’s subconscious to create something that put ancient religious ideas into 17th century Christian religious terms—in addition to adding a bunch of sermons on 17th century contemporary issues, but even that seems like a stretch.  More likely Joseph (likely with Spirit being helpers, pulled ancient American historical events and concepts out of the ‘Akashic records‘ and mixed it with sermons answering contemporary Christian theological problems. It could possibly be largely true. But certainly not as a translated ancient text.  The concepts are far to westernized and biblically derived to be legit.

Protected: Book of Mormon Geography

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Book of Mormon Places (Gazetteer)

Various author’s Internal models of the Book of Mormon

Our Internal Model of the Book of Mormon (based on explanations given below)

Ammonihah, Land of 

-It was 3 days travel on the north of the land/city of Melek (which was west of Sidon by a/the west? wilderness) ,  (Alma 8:6).
-It was on the border of the greater land of Zarahemla (Alma 25:2).  Possibly the northern border?
-It was near, and probably west? of, the city of Sidom (Alma 15:1).
-It was near the city of Noah (Alma 16:2–3). The Lamanite armies destroy “some around the borders of Noah” after sacking Ammonihah. They also go straight to Noah after attempting to sack Ammonihah after its rebuilt (Alma 49:12–14). Noah is mentioned nowhere else in the text.
-It was near the city of Aaron. At least Alma “took a journey toward the city called Aaron” after being cast out of Ammonihah (Alma 8:13).  Which seems likely the same as the East coast city of Aaron between Moroni & Nephihah (Alma 50:14), perhaps by Jershon and named after Aaron the Missionary of Alma 31.
-The or a wilderness abutted Ammonihah on the west (Alma 8:5).
-There were 2 routes into the city (Alma 8:16).
-It was fortified with Moroni’s ditch and mound system (Alma 49:4). But beforehand considered “the weakest part of the land”, and obviously a frontier town. (Alma 49:15)

discussion:   The location of this city depends largely on identifying Melek (since we know they are both west of Sidon, but Ammoniihah is 3 days north of Melek).  Since the people of Jershon flee Jershon and go to Melek to avoid the Zoramite attack… Ammoniahah can’t be all that far from Jershon! This is likely substantiated by the mention of Alma “headed toward the city called Aaron” after being cast out of Ammonihah, since Aaron was also one of the sons of Mosiah and his followers may have founded a city right near Jershon. If Jershon is “near the borders” of the east sea, why are they fleeing somewhere by the WEST wilderness?  Melek and Ammonihah are the most difficult of any cities to place in both internal and external models. Many have speculated there are two Melek’s because of the confusion. Really the only working solution is to have an arm of Sidon that is quite far EAST, so Ammoniahah/Melek can be west of it, AND near some type of “west wilderness”, but also not too far from the East Coast cities of Jershon and Aaron.

Note that Alma 16 is perhaps the best indication of where this city is, as it suggests Ammonihah is a first city in the Nephite lands when an army “come in upon the wilderness side, into the borders of the land” (Alma 16:2). Note is says NOTHING about the West sea here, which seems to go against the common habit/mistake of putting Ammonihah somewhere near the west sea (which makes no sense when the text seems to suggest its not far from the east coast city of Aaron (Alma 8:13). Perhaps more importantly, is the path taken by the Lamanite armies as they head back to the land of Nephi with their prisoners.  Alma tells the Nephite generals to head them off near “the river Sidon in the south wilderness, away up beyond the borders of the land of Manti” (Alma 16:6). Looking at internal maps or most Mesoamerican models we see how little sense this path of retreat makes given what we know of Manti (see Manti and Sidon, Head of).  Why isn’t the coast mentioned at all? Why would they go through the central part of the land to hightail it home, after purposefully sneaking into the “weakest part of the land?” (Alma 49:15)

model: the Hildalgo area seems the most likely candidate, maybe Xihuingo, but one still has to wonder how the Lamanite army snuck through the defensive line of cities in Alma 16 & 49. Because of this the valley of Mexico seems out, although some parts of the Cuernavaca/Balsas basin could be reasonable, even if unlikely.


Antionum, Land of 

-Antionum is “the land of the Zoramites” (Alma 31, Alma 43:5), yet it seems to have been in Nephite territory or the border of Nephite territory during Moroni’s time.
-It is “east of the land of Zerahemla, which lay nearly bordering upon the seashore, which was south of the land of Jershon, which also bordered upon the wilderness south” (Alma 31:3)
-After their mission to the Zoramites, Alma and Amulek go rest at Jershon (so its close). Alma 35:2
-Bordering the land of Jershon & the “wilderness” (Alma 43:15, see Alma 43:5,15,22)

discussion: Alma 43, is important as it establishes that Antionum and Jershon are very close to each other, and likely closest to Manti and the “head of Sidon”, more than Zerahemla or other Nephite cities. It also establishes Antionum as the likely southernmost city of the east border/coast cities, since it was the first place the Zoramites reached as they came up the coast for battle. But both it and Jershon are NEARLY bordering the shore, but not ON the shore, and yet BORDERING the south wilderness.  So they seem to be where the coastal plain meets the mountains/wilderness and BORDERING the south wilderness. Its initially In nephite territory, but Zoramite mission is because they fear they might join the Lamanites and thus endanger Nephite lands (Alma 31:4)

model: note this means it has to be SOUTH of Zerahamla & thus Catonia (which Jershon could be), and perhaps as far south as Tehuacan or even La Coyotera (thats probably too far). Probably on the upper or lower border of the coastal mountains. I get the feeling that the entire coastal plain is refered to as the “borders of the seashore”, so the fact that it is only “nearly” bordering the seashore, it is NOT down on the coastal plain.


Melek, Land of

-Alma 8:3–4 says Melek is “west of the river Sidon, on the west by the borders of the wilderness”.
-Alma 8:6 says it’s three days Journey south of Ammonihah. Alma 31:6 agrees it’s close to Ammonihah (since Amulek and Zeezrom are there). Either way, this chapter gives more support to the idea that Melek is close to Jershon and the Zoramites. (by the east sea)
-West of the Sidon River by the borders (on the edge of) of the wilderness (Alma 8:3).
-The land was large enough to contain the displaced Ammonites from Jerson (Alma 35:13).  Probably very good agriculturally, and secure in order for the Ammonites to be moved there once their land was deemed an unsafe frontier.
-It was 3 days journey to (the south of) the city of Ammonihah (Alma 8:6).
-It was near the city of Noah (Alma 16:2–3). The Lamanite armies destroy “some around the borders of Noah” after sacking Ammonihah. They also go straight to Noah after attempting to sack Ammonihah after its rebuilt (Alma 49:12–14). Noah is mentioned nowhere else in the text.
-It was near the city of Aaron. At least Alma “took a journey toward the city called Aaron” after being cast out of Ammonihah (Alma 8:13).  Which seems likely the same as the East coast city of Aaron between Moroni & Nephihah (Alma 50:14), perhaps by Jershon and named after Aaron the Missionary of Alma 31.

discussion: This is one of the hardest of ANY cities in the book of Mormon to place. (making it fit with Ammonihah, Jershon and Noah) Many have speculated there are two Melek’s because it makes little sense for the people of Ammon to go from the East coast to somewhere near the “west wilderness”, and “west of sidon”. The location of this city is tied to the location of Ammonihah. Alma 8:3 may lead to speculate the Melek was far in the west by the west sea and west wilderness. However, since the Ammonites flee there, it must still be pretty close to the East Sea where Jershon was. Its hard to say exactly what encompasses the “west wilderness” of Alma 8:3  (Alma 27:22 makes it clear Jershon is “on the east by the sea”.)   It could be across the river from Gideon (which is on the east of Sidon),

model:  Perhaps “west of sidon” doesn’t mean by the West Sea, but west of a Sidon tributary, like where Puebla is. (see Jershon).  Of course it’s possible that anything west of Zerahamla/Cholula/Popocatepetl could be considered the “west wilderness”.  I’m guessing somewhere like Chalcatzingo/Ocuituco/Chalco or Cuernavaca or south to Cuetlajuchitlán or even Teopantecuanitlan (but thats a LONG way for a people to fee, although they’d already come from Nephi and may have wanted to move closer to it anyway). Or it could be farther west like Chalcatzingo (but why would the Ammonites flee there if its that far?). How do you get a configuration that is west of the river Sidon, but close to the East sea and Jershon?   I’ll bet its good agricultural land, but quite possibly closer to the “southwest” cities that their 2000 sons were defending. Lower Cuernavaca, lower Chalcantango or even into the Mixtec lands. Likely very hidden.


Mulek, Land of – (see Bountiful)

-on east borders by seashore, possessed by Amalickiah: Alma 51:25–26 .
-Moroni retakes Mulek: Alma 52:16–26 . ( Alma 53:2, 6 )
-heavily fortified. Not too far from city of Bountiful. (Alma 52:17)  Not too far from the seashore (Alms 52:22). Teancum retreat north along the seashore away from the city (v. 23). Likely less than a few hours south-east of Bountiful. (see discussion)
-there are plains between Mulek and Bountiful that could serve as a battleground. (Alms 52:20)

discussion: The location of this city is tied to city of Bountiful per Alma 52.  Teanucm flees Mulek (east?) to the seashore (v. 20), then flees northward (v. 23) toward the city of Bountiful (v. 27,39)


Bountiful, City of – (see Mulek)

-Moroni & Teancum force Lamanite prisoners to dig a ditch and dirt brim about the city. It becomes a stronghold “ever after”. (Alma 53:2–5)
-it is near the city of Mulek, (eastward?), and presumably near the east? seashore. (Alms 52:20)

-it is near the pass which leads to the land northward. Likely the most northern of the string of east coast cities (Alma 52:11–15?)

discussion: Alma 52:11 talks about how Moroni is over by the west sea fighting, and sends an epistle to Teancum who is by the east sea cities of Mulek and Bountiful, and tells him to” secure the pass which led into the land northward” (v. 9). This makes no sense unless he’s talking about an EAST SEA PASS. Moroni leaves the west coast and marches to Bountiful and the EAST coast (v. 15).

[Model: So Bountiful could only be somewhere like Tamtoc or ruins in Tampico!]


South & West Cities.   Zeezroom, Cumeni, Antiparah & Judea. Described as being presumably on the borders of the land on the south by the west sea (Alma 53:8,22)

-They appear to stretch in a line from Manti in the order of Manti, Zeezrom, Cumeni, Antiparah, Judea? (Alma 56:14). They are retaken by Helaman’s 2000 warriors in reverse order.
-The cities of were apparently on the south and west border of the Nephite lands and were the first cities captured by the Lamanite invaders (Alma 56:14). Alma 52:11–12 describes Ammaron’s intent to assault the “borders by the west sea”.
-Manti is consistently mentioned in conjunction with the river Sidon (especially it’s ‘head’). But the river Sidon is never mentioned in the war for these cities… so it’s likely near Manti but not between these cities.
-Antiparah was between the city of Judea and an unnamed Nephite city near the seashore (Alma 56:30). We can presume this is the west sea, although it’s strange that Nephihah (which Alma 51:26 says is by the East Sea) is mentioned in conjunction with these cities (Alma 56:25).
-The fact that Zerahemla and Nephihah (which Alma 51:26 says is by the East Sea) is mentioned in conjunction of these cities is another great evidence that these South & West Cities are stretching in a line from the West Sea toward the East Sea. (with the head of Sidon being beyond Manti, yet between these and Nephihah — Alma 56:25)
-The Nephite armies could flee two days northward from Antiparah into the wilderness without reaching the shore or Zarahemla (Alma 56:33–42).
-Cumeni seems to be just west of Manti (Alma 57:22). Cumeni doesn’t appear to have been a fortified city (Alma 57:16–20).
-In battle for Cumeni, defeated Lamanites were driven back to nearby city of Manti (Alma 57:22).
Some or all of these cities were fortified (Alma 56:20–21).
-Zeezrom is likely right next to Manti, because it’s never mentioned again after verse 22. After Cumeni the war goes straight to Manti.
-going from these cities to Nephihah would require crossing “the head of Sidon”.  Nephihah and Zarahamla were the closest options of Lamanite attack from these cities (Alma 56:25). That might be a good evidence that the ‘head’ of Sidon is it’s headwaters which are close to Nephihah and the east sea.
-there are “other cities which were on the northward”, which are not mentioned by name (Alma 56:22). This again suggests that these cities are the southern (or possibly southwestern? – but I think not) frontier.

discussion: The cities defended by Helaman’s 2000 stripling warriors in Alma 56-57 are said to be “southern cities” by the west sea, which Moroni must have been guarding before he went to help Teancum with the Eastern front- Alma 52:11–52. (Moroni left Helaman & Antipus in charge when he left.) Additionally, prisoners from this group are sent down to Zarahemla (suggesting it’s close by & lower).  Helaman says in Alma 56:14 the Lamanites had taken Manti, Zeezrom, Cumeni and Antiparah (in that order) when he gets to Judea. The cities are then retaken in the reverse order (with no mention of Zeezrom).

Military maneuvers begin in Judea (Alma 56:9). Helaman then marches past (but within sight of spies) Antiparah as if to go “to a city beyond by the seashore” as a decoy (possibly northward. see v. 36). When the Lamanites take the bait they flee a full day “northward, even to a considerable distance” (v. 36-37). Probably heading somewhat toward the sea still. After the battle prisoners are sent to Zarahamla, not back to Judea, so their march must have put them closer to Zarahamla. After heading back to Judea, the Lamanites abandon Antiparah, so the Nephites march and siege Cumeni— which is surrendered. The next battle is for Manti.

Heleman’s army then decoys the Lamanites out of Manti and then flees “much in the wilderness” toward Zarahemla, so it can’t be that far from Zarahamla (58:23-28). I suspect that Judea might be by the shore near Acapulco (La Sabana), and Manti near Tehuacan, with the other cities strung between. So this is the southwest frontier, and Teancum/Mororni’s battles were the eastern frontier.  

Model: Perhaps Oxtotitlan Cave and Juxtlahuaca Cave were painted during this Lamanite assault? (dates are typical ascribed earlier.)    Possibly, La Sabana, Teopantecuanitlan by the river Sidon, Cuetlajuchitlán and Chalcatzingo or Xochicalco near Cuernavaca (Manti being Cholula near Puebla or Chalcatzingo or Tenongo).


East Sea Cities. At least four cities (and likely nine) border the East Sea, Moroni, Aaron, Nephihah and Jershon. (Lehi, Morianton, Omner, Gid, Mulek seem near the sea but could be inland a ways)


-It was located on the shore of the east sea and was near the south wilderness of the Lamanites (Alma 50:13).
-The land of Moroni bordered the land of Aaron, and the city of Nephihah was built in between (Alma 50:14).
-Lehi was a nearby city to the north (Alma 50:15; 51:24).
-Moroni was surrounded by a wall (probably the trench-mound-palisade fortifications of Moroni) (Alma 62:36).
-Submerged in the sea. Perhaps still underwater. (3 Ne. 8:9).


-It was located between Moroni and Aaron (Alma 50:14–15).
-It was in the borders by the east sea, but apparently not right on the seashore (Alma 51:25–26).
-There was a plain near the city (Alma 62:18).
-The city had walls and an entrance (Alma 61:20–22).
-It was south of the city of Lehi (Alma 51:25).


-They were on the east on the borders by the seashore (Alma 51:26).
-They were built for defense and were probably about a days journey apart (Alma 50:9–11).
-Mulek was less than a day’s journey from the city of Bountiful (Alma Ch. 52).
-Lehi and Morianton were probably built in close proximity to each other-because they have a boundary dispute (Alma 50:25–36)
-These cities were all fortified with a ditch, mound and wooden palisade (Alma 51:27, 55:25-26).
-Heleman’s sons take a missionary journey from Bountiful, to Gid, to Mulek to Zarahemla to the Lamanites in the land Southward (Helaman 5:15–16). Note the direction error in v 16.

discussion: when Amalickiah comes to battle the Nephites in Alma 51, he first takes the city of Moroni and “all of their fortifications”, and then goes on to “take Nephihah, Lehi, Morianton, Omner, Gid and Mulek, all of which were east on the borders of the seashore” (Alma 51:26), suggesting that those cities were arranged in that order from south to north along the east sea.  They then “march forth… that they might take possession of the land Bountiful and also the land northward” (Alma 51:30). After Teancum kills Amalickiah on the way to Bountiful, they retreat back to Mulek. At that point Moroni sends a letter telling Teancum to secure the narrow pass, because he “cannot come” because he is occupied with a Lamanite attack “on the borders of the west sea”. This suggests the western cities are a long way from these eastern cities and the narrow pass.


Gideon, Land of 

-It was situated east of the River Sidon and about a days journey from Zarahemla, (Alma 6:7).
-A trail led southward from Gideon to Manti, and also to the land of Nephi (Alma 17:1)
-The Land of Gideon was at a higher elevation than the City of Zarahemla (Alma 62:6–7).
-It was near the hill Amnihu, and “in the course of” or on the way to the land of Nephi (Alma 2:15–20).
-It was located between the city of Zarahemla and the city of Minon (Alma 2:24)..
-The ‘Valley Gideon’ is likely east of the River Sidon (alma 2:35)?  At any rate you must cross sidon to get from the valley of Gideon to the city of Zarahemla

[Model: If Zarahemla is Cuicuilco in the valley of Mexico, Cholula is a fantastic match for Gideon with La Malinche matching the Hill Riplah. (but Amla 2 doesn’t fit with that well?)]


Jershon, Land of

-It was “east by the sea”, south of the land of Bountiful (joining borders with Bountiful), and bordering on the south wilderness (Alma 27:22). The Lamanites had to be driven out of it, and it became a buffer between Bountiful and the Lamanite Lands.
-It was east of the city of Zarahema (Alma 27:22).
-It was lower in elevation than the south wilderness (Alma 27:26).
-It was north of the land of Antionum, or land of the Zoramites (Alma 31:3).
-It was likely near the eastern coastal cities of Mulek, Gid, Omner, Morianton, Lehi, Nephihah, and Moroni. (ref?)
-It’s just north of the Zoramites of Antionum, “which was east of the land of Zarahemla, which lay nearly bordering upon the seashore, which was south of the land of Jershon, which also bordered upon the wilderness south, which wilderness was full of the Lamanites” (Alma 31:3).
-It’s not far from Melek? since the people of Ammon temporarily flee to Melek when the Zoramites prepare to attack (Alma 35:13–14).  But it doesn’t make sense, because Alma 8:3–4 says Melek is “west of the river Sidon, on the west by the borders of the wilderness”. Perhaps this doesn’t mean by the west sea, but west of a Sidon tributary, like where puebla is.
-Alma 8:6 says Melek is three days Journey south of Ammonihah. Alma 31:6 agrees it’s close to Ammonihah (since Amulek and Zeezrom are there). Either way, this chapter gives more support to the idea that Melek is close to Jershon and the Zoramites.


Helum, Alma, Amulon (cities in Alma’s flight to Zarahemla)

-Helam is 8 days journey into the wilderness from the city of Nephi (Mosiah 23:3).
-Helam is 12 (or 13) days journey from the city of Zarahemla (Mosiah 24:23–25).
-Helam was in an area suitable for agriculture (Mosiah 23:4–5).
-The Valley of Alma was one days journey (probably northward) from Helam (Mosiah 24:20).
-Amulon was suitable for agriculture, but apparently not as good as Helam as they did not return to it (Mosiah 23).
-All these locations were in the south wilderness between Nephi and Zarahemla.
-The land of Amulon should probably be encountered first in traveling toward Nephi from Zarahemla in accordance with the experience of the lost Lamanite army (Mosiah 23:31–36).  (double check this)


Sidon, River (28 uses) – major or geographically significant river. The only named river in the Book of Mormon. It has east and west banks… but also may flow “from east to west” (Alma 22:27).

-hill Amnihu is on east of Sidon: Alma 2:15 .
-it “ran BY the land of Zarahemla”: Alma 2:15 .
-Lamanites camp on west of Sidon: Alma 2:34 .
-many are baptized in waters of Sidon: Alma 4:4 .
-wilderness at Sidon: Alma 22:29 .
-One must go round about the river’s head when traveling from Jershon/Anionum to Manti (Alma 43:22).
-One must presumably cross from the west to east side of it traveling from Zarahemla to Gideon (Alma 6:7).  The city and valley of Gideon are on the east side of the river. (in the region of Zarahemla and Gideon it flows north-south.
-An army must cross it (presumably on foot) going from Gideon to Zarahemla. (Alma 2:27,34).  It has banks that can serve as battlegrounds.
-It was large enough to carry the bodies of the dead Lamanites out to the sea. (Alma 3:3)
-But it was small enough for an army to easily cross without boats/etc. (Alma 43:35–41, Alma 16:6–7)
-Perhaps “bordering on the wilderness” and going “from east to the west”. Alma 22:29  If the “wilderness” mentioned in Alma 22:29 is the same as the “narrow strip of wilderness” in verse 27 (which seems likely), then the head of Sidon is likely IN the narrow strip of wilderness that divides the Nephite and Lamanite lands.
-It apparently must be crossed as one goes from the Land of Nephi to the Land of Zerahemla (further supporting it being some kind of east-west running barrier like the south wilderness) Alma 16:6, Alma 2, Alma 43 .
-It was west of the hill Amnihu. Suggesting it runs north/south at that point. (Alma 2:15)
-It was west of the Valley of Gideon. (Alma 2:26; 6:7)
-The City of Melek was to the west of the Sidon–again suggesting a north-south flow in this region. (Alma 8:3)
-The City of Manti was at the headwaters of the Sidon near the south wilderness. (Alma 16:6–7; 22:27)
-The head of the River Sidon extended into the south wilderness, and created an obvious crossing point on the way to Nephi. (Alma 43:22).
-Runs between the Valley of Gideon (which is west of Zarahamla), then through “the land of Zarahemla”, but likely not through the city. (Alma 2:15, since the bodies of Alma 2:34 would then float through the city).)
-Likely either too large to safely cross, or down in a canyon or deep valley in most places as the crossing points seem limited & predictable (Alma 16:6, Alma 2)

discussion: Alma 22:27 ambiguously gives several geographic descriptions ending with the words “through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west”. One way to read this is that saying that the river Sidon “runs from east to west”.   This verbiage isn’t unique as Alma 2:15, also uses the words “running” to show directionally of the river by the land of Zarahemla. However, it is also possible this verse is for some reason simply restating the clause earlier in the verse where the “narrow strip of wilderness… runs from sea east even to sea west”. The idea that a region might also “run” like a river is also used in Alma 50:8 where the land of Nephi is said to “run in a straight course from the east sea to the west”.  I actually believe it is both, as the author is trying to explain that Sidon, just like the lands of Bountiful and Nephi and the south wilderness “runs” from east to west nearly all the way across the land.  (thats why its repeated twice in v.27). This idea is further supported by Alma 16:6, where Alma prophecies that the Lamanites as they flee home will “cross the river Sidon in the south wilderness, away up beyond the borders of the land Manti”. As if Sidon was some kind of border which Zoram ‘expected’ the Lamanites would have to cross (and there were only so many places to cross it, so as to know where Alma was talking about). This also accords with other places in the text where the river Sidon appears to be the best place to meet Lamanite armies as they head toward the Land of Zerahemla (Alma 2, Alma 43).
It can’t be proven, but seems likely this clause IS INDEED talking about the river sidon running from east to west, just as did the “land of Nephi” in Alma 50:8, and the “narrow strip of wilderness” in Alma 22:27 and the “line Bountiful” of Alma 22:32 .   This suggests to me also, that Sidon formed some kind of “east to west” barrier between the Nephite and Lamanite lands, much like the narrow stip of wilderness of v.27.    This also makes sense given the discussion for “Sidon, Head of” where it is shown that the head of sidon, or headwaters of sidon are almost certainly near the EAST SEA! (And then flowing toward the land Gideon and Zerahemla). This also helps explain why no mention of crossing Sidon’s mouth/delta is ever mentioned in conjunction with the east coast defensive cities, OR with the final retreat of the Nephites to Desolation along the west coast.  HOWEVER, a contrary point is the fact that the only ‘banks’ ever mentioned in relation to the river are east-west ones (Alma 16:6, Alma 43:27,53), suggesting that at least in the places where it is most often crossed, it flows north-south.  [Note that my model seems to satisfy all these requirements quite well].


Sidon, Head of (Head of Sidon. 5 uses)

“Head” is defined in websters 1828 dictionary as “To originate; to spring; to have its source, as a river.”  Also “30. The part most remote from the mouth or opening into the sea; as the head of a bay, gulf or creek.”  Also “18. The principal source of a stream; as the head of the Nile.” Aside from twisting the meaning of the word, attempting to make the “head of Sidon”, mean the mouth or delta of the river run into possible problems in explaining a setup where the Lamanite armies leave coastal Jerson/Antionum and go “round about in the wilderness…by the head of Sidon” to get to Manti (Alma 43:22–27) which is known to be “up” and on the way to Nephi (which is also always “up”).

-Perhaps “running from the east toward the west”. Alma 22:27. See discussion on Sidon, River.
-Exists as an obstacle between Manti/Zeezrom and Nephihah, when going “round about in the wilderness”. Alma 56:25
-Exists as an obstacle between Jershon and Manti, when going “round about in the wilderness”. Alma 43:22
-It’s in the south-east, being between Lamanite armies (of the south & west cities) and the city of Nephihah (on the east sea). Alma 56:25
-Perhaps “bordering on the wilderness” and going “from east to the west”. Alma 22:29  If the “wilderness” mentioned in Alma 22:29 is the same as the “narrow strip of wilderness” in verse 27 (which seems likely), then the head of Sidon is likely IN the narrow strip of wilderness that divides the Nephite and Lamanite lands.
-“From the west sea, running by the head of Sidon” Alma 50:8,11  See discussion.

discussion: Seems likely that “the head of sidon” is a geographical term paralleling the modern term of “headwaters of a river”. Such as modern use of “the headwaters of the Mississippi or Ohio or Colorado or Snake rivers”. All of these terms would actually be talking about a highland or mountainous ridge area. Thus, the “head of sidon” may not be talking about the river so much, as the ridge of mountains. (In my model, that which runs from Popocatépetl & Tlaloc or even Pico de Orizaba in the east to Nevado de Toluca & Morelia or even Tancitaro in the west). For an army to “cross the head of Sidon” would not only mean crossing the river’s small early tributaries, but more importantly crossing the mountain passes which lie at the head of them. Alma 43:22, Alma 56:25 .

Alma 50:11, almost seems to suggest the ‘head of sidon’ is near the west sea (which supports the atypical head=mouth argument). However, Alma 56:25 says the Nephites would have had to cross the head of Sidon to get to Nephihah, which is by the East Sea. Therefore, Alma 50 is likely contrasting the head of Sidon with the west sea (suggesting it is opposite the west sea, and near the East sea).  See a great discussion on this in this link, search for “Thus, we seem to have established, as clearly as the text will allow, that the head of the river Sidon was east of Manti, not far from Nephihah, south of Antionum, and near the east sea. All of these bits of information are consistent with each other, and therefore, increase the probability of our conclusion.”

[Model: However, an argument can be made that the Head is the mouth of Rio Balsas on the West Sea. Since the “south and west cities” appear to stretch in a line from Manti in the order of Manti, Zeezrom, Cumeni, Antiparah, Judea (Alma 56:14), one could argue that Manti is somewhere near the mouth of Sidon and those cities stretch north toward Cuernavaca or Guadalajara.]


Manti, Land & City of

-The Lamanite crossing of Sidon was up beyond the borders of the land Manti (Alma 16:6). Also, the army ambush of Alma 43:32 occurs up from Manti “and so down into the borders of Manti”. (Alma 43:32)
-It was on the southern borders of the land of Zarahemla, at the head of the River Sidon, near the narrow strip of wilderness (Alma 22:27).
-A trail from Gideon led southward to Manti (Alma 17:1).
-To the south of the land of Manti, there was another valley along the course of the upper Sidon, with the hill Riplah on its east side. (Alma 43:31–32)
-The cities of Zeezrom, Cumeni, Antiparah, Judea? (Alma 56:14) stretch out in a line from it. It has a “wilderness side” (likely up against rugged terrain, a mountain or dense forest (Alma 58:13), with places to hide an army (56:17). Judea is near the west seashore.
-Heleman’s army decoys the Lamanites out of Manti and then flees “much in the wilderness” toward Zarahemla, so it can’t be that far from Zarahamla (Alma 58:23–28).
-After Nehor slays Gideon in Alma 1:9,15 he’s hung on the “hill Manti”. It seems likely that the “hill Manti” was in the land Manti (perhaps it’s defining feature), and that the land of Gideon is named after Gideon and thus is close to Manti (or at least the hill).  Alma 17:1 might support this, saying that Manti is “southward” from Gideon.
-Alma 16:6–7 says after Ammonihah and Noah are attacked, the Lamanites head home and “cross the river Sidon in the south wilderness, away up beyond the borders of the land of Manti.” Verse 6 suggests that the borders of Manti are by the “south wilderness, which was on the east side of the river Sidon.” Note it doesn’t say “south side of Sidon,” it says east side.

[Model: Could it be talking about the Cuernavaca tributary of Sidon or is Manti east of Puebla?]


Nephi, City of

-everything is ALWAYS up to the city of Nephi (down out of the city of Nephi when leaving). In my model this is not necessarily because of the cities high elevation (although it is high at 6,300 ft), but because it is up on a tall defensive hill.  The Land does have hills higher than it which over look it (Mosiah 7:6). See Omni 1:27; WOM 1:13; Mosiah 7:2–6; 19:5; 20:2,7; 24:20; 26:3; 28:5; 29:3,14; Alma 27:5, 47:1;
-It was a twenty days journey from Nephi to Zarahemla (with families apparently on foot) (Mosiah 23:1–4; 24:25). This would have been about 150-250 miles.
-It was an area of dryer climate grassland or Savannah (not a forested area or jungle) where they could raise grain and grazed flocks and had to fight for water resources (2 Nephi 5:11; Mosiah 21:16).
-It was “Many days journey” west of the Land of First Inheritance (with families apparently on foot) (2 Nephi 5:7).
-Nephi built a temple there (2 Nephi 2:16).
-The city of Nephi had a wall (Mosiah 22:6).
-Abundant mineral deposits (2 Nephi 5:15).
-Land of Mormon, and waters of Mormon were close by (no further than a days journey) (Mosiah 18).
-Adjacent to the lands of Shemlon and Shilom (Mosiah 19:6; 22:8).
-Near the south wilderness (Mosiah 22:12).


Zarahemla, Land & City of –   In most Book of Mormon verses, things tend to be always down to Zarahemla. In our model this is not necessarily because it is in a coastal lowland, but because it is in a deep valley surrounded by such unparalleled huge mountains, it tends to feel like a very low valley. And may have had a hieroglyphic marker denoting down or low in it’s name.

-complaints come up to the land of Zarahemla (3 Ne 6:25). On the other hand, this reference might have nothing to do with altitude, but of importance… such as “up to capitol hill, Washington”.
-must head westward and cross the river Sidon to get to Gideon (Alma 6:7)
-“the river Sidon, which ran by the land Zarahemla” (Alma 2:15). River runs by the land Zarahemla, not necessarily the city.
-many in the “land of Zarahemla”, join the church and are baptized in the “waters of Sidon” (Alma 4:1–4). This infers the river sidon is near or in the land of Zarahemla. However, because it says “waters of Sidon” instead of river Sidon we must guess as to whether this is the river or perhaps a sacred lake with the same name (somehow associated with the river? part of its headwaters?)
-war begins with the Lamanites in the “borders of Zarahemla, by the waters of Sidon”.  Whether this is the river Sidon or a lake with the same name is unknown. Also unknown if this is the land or city of Zarahemla. Presumably a war is not going to begin on the outskirts of the capitol city… so likely the land of Zarahemla.

Discussion: There is never any mention of the river Sidon flowing through the city Zarahemla but Alma 2:15 says it flows through the land Zarahamla, and the narrative definitely suggests it’s within a day of the city. Sidon most often seems to be associated with the barriers between Nephite & Lamanite lands. Two verses mention the “waters of Sidon” in association with the land of Zarahemla (not city).

-It was divided from the Land of Nephi to the south by a narrow strip of east-west wilderness. (Alma 22:27)
-It was in a central part of the Nephite lands which were south of the narrow neck of land (Hel. 1:27).
-It had a mixed (and probably segregated) population of Nephites and Mulekites which probably resulted in separate barrios or twinned cities (Omni 1:16–19; Mosiah 25:4).

-The City of Zarahemla had a wall (it does not specify whether it was of stone or timber) (Hel. 1:21).
-It was located at a distance of 20 days travel from the City of Nephi (apparently in a northward direction) (Mosiah 23:3; Mosiah 24:25).
-It was occupied by the Nephite faction from about 200 B.C. (The “Mulekites” having arrived earlier.)
-The Land Zarahemla was roughly bordered on all sides by areas of wilderness (Alma 22), including a west wilderness, past Mekek somewhere west of the river Sidon (Alma 8:3), the Wilderness of Hermounts northwest from Zarahemla (Alma 2:37), and the east wilderness (Alma 25:5).
-South of Zarahemla and the narrow strip of wilderness, lay the expansive south wilderness of the Lamanite domains (Alma 22:27).
-It was burned at the time of the crucifixion (3 Ne. 9:3).
-The city of Gideon and river Sidon lay a short distance to the east (Alma 6:7).
-It was an area where tropical diseases (i.e. fevers) and their remedies were present (Alma 46:40).

discussionAlma 2 may be one of the best descriptions of Zarahemla and its relationship to the River Sidon, Gideon and Nephi. It first tells us there is a strategic hill (Amnihu), “east of the River Sidon, which ran by the land of Zarahemla” that the Amlicites use to start a war with the people of Zarahemla (perhaps a Guerilla base on the hill- Alma 2:14–16). These verses seem to purposely point out that the River Sidon goes through the land Zarahemla, but NOT the city of Zerahemla. The Amlicites flee from the hill to the Valley of Gideon, so the Hill is likely between Zarahemla and Gideon. But there is no mention of crossing Sidon yet. (So Gideon Valley must still be East of the River Sidon). Gideon is also “in the course of” (on the way to) the land of Nephi (Alma 2:24). The Amlicites circumvent Gideon to head back to Zarahemla by way of Minon which is “above” Zarahemla. But as the Nephites go to head off the Amlicites in Minon and get ready to cross Sidon (from East to West?, on the way to Zarahemla) they get attacked and must “clear the bank on the west of Sidon” (Alma 2:34) to fight off the Amlicite army which then flees “towards the wilderness which was west and north, away beyond the borders of the land…until they had reached the wilderness, which was called Hermounts; and it was that part of the wilderness which was infested by wild and ravenous beasts” (Alma 2:36–38).  This is a tricky configuration that tells us a number of things…

-River Sidon runs “by the land of Zarahemla”, and NOT likely through the city of Zarahemla (Alma 2:15, since the bodies of Alma 2:34 would then float through the city)
-There is a prominent “hill Amnihu, which was east of the river Sidon, which ran by the land of Zarahemla”
-It is likely about a day from Zarahemla to the valley of Gideon (Alma 2:20), which is “in the course of” (on the way to) the land of Nephi (Alma 2:24). But at the same time Gideon can be easily circumvented to get back to Zerahamla another way (see v.25-26).
-There is a land of Minion above (higher than) the land of Zarahamla (Alma 2:24).
-For some reason you don’t seem to cross Sidon to get from Zarahemla to Gideon, but you do cross it if you want to head back to Zarahemla through Minon which is (in a pass)  ‘above’ Zarahemla..
-From that Sidon Crossing near Minon above Zarahamla, you would flee to the North and West Wilderness (Hermounts), which is infested with beasts from the Land Northward. (compare Alma 2:36–38 to Alma 22:31).
-You can throw a bunch of bodies into Sidon from near Minon above Zarahemla, Alma 2:34 (presumably without polluting the water source of any respected city like Zarahemla– which makes the idea that Sidon flows north from Gideon and Minon through Zarahemla seem unlikely).

Wilderness  – a (1) : a tract or region uncultivated and uninhabited by human beings (2) : an area essentially undisturbed by human activity together with its naturally developed life community  b : an empty or pathless area or region.

When the Book of Mormon speaks of wildernesses, I believe it is using the moden definition. It is talking about unsettled, unclaimed, undeveloped area. That is, one without cities, roads or easy access.

Wilderness, Narrow Strip

-Area dividing the Nephite and Lamanite lands running from Sea East to Sea West. (Alma 22:27)

Problems with this model.

The narrow neck. The up and down of Nephi & Zarahemla.


Travels of the Nephites from Zarahemla to the Final Battle.

-Moroni gets instructions to go to hill Shim in the Land Antum to get records. (Mormon 1:3)
-Moroni “carried by his father into the land southward, even to the land of Zarahemla”. (Mormon 1:6)
-War begins “in the borders of Zarahemla, by the waters of Sidon”.  (First Battle – Mormon 1:10)
-A number of battles fought, then a truce for four to seven years.
-Lamanites attack again, Nephites “retreat towards the northcountries”. (Mormon 2:3)
-Moroni’s army take and fortify Angola “with their might”, but “notwithstanding their fortifications”, the city is taken. (Mormon 2:4)
-They are “also” driven out of the land David. (unsure if Angola was in the land David or if its the next province to the north) (Mormon 2:5)
-They gather to Joshua which is “west by the seashore”. (Mormon 2:6–8) A battle with a force of 40,000 each is fought here… Lamanites retreat.
-345AD. Lamanites attack again, Nephites retreat to city of Jashon, “near the land [Antum] where Ammaron had deposited the records unto the Lord” (Mormon 2:17).  Moroni gets just the plates of Nephi, and leaves the remainder where they are. (see Mormon 1:3)
-Nephites driven “northward to the land which was called Shem”. (Mormon 2:20) Nephites fortify the city and are attacked in 346AD, but win a battle with 30k to 50k. (Mormon 2:25)
-In 350AD a treaty is made. Lamanites “ give unto us the land northward, yea, even to the narrow passage which led into the land southward. And we did give unto the Lamanites all the land southward.” (Mormon 2:29)
-For 10 years, Nephites fortify and prepare. In 360AD Mormon causes his “people that they should gather themselves together at the land Desolation, to a city which was in the borders, by the narrow pass which led into the land southward. 6 And there we did place our armies, that we might stop the armies of the Lamanites, that they might not get possession of any of our lands; therefore we did fortify against them with all our force. 7 And it came to pass that in the three hundred and sixty and first year the Lamanites did come down to the city of Desolation to battle against us”. Nephites beat them. They come again the next year. They beat them a third time. “and their dead were cast into the sea.” (Mormon 3:8)
Desolation is by the sea or a river that flows into sea
-in 363AD, the Nephites go on the offensive, up out of desolation, but are driven back to “the land of Desolation” (not city). Then Lamanites attack, and take the city of desolation “slaying many and taking many prisoners”. (Mormon 4:2)
-”And the remainder did flee and join the inhabitants of the city Teancum. Now the city Teancum lay in the borders by the seashore; and it was also near the city Desolation.”  (Mormon 4:3)
Teancum is also somewhat near the sea.
-364AD, Lamanites come against Teancum, and are repulsed, so Nephites follow them and retake Desolation.  (Mormon 4:8)
Desolation and Teancum are close to each other
-In 366AD Lamanites attack and take Desolation, and then Teancum (and sacrifice the inhabitants both women and children.) Nephites are so angry about the loss of their families they retake the cities and drive the Lamanites out of the land. Then another 10 year pause in fighting (Mormon 4:16)
-In 375AD, the Lamanites come down to desolation with a numberless host.
-Nephites flea to Boaz and fight two battles. On second attack they flea and women and children are sacrificed again. Nephites flea and “all the inhabitants with them, both in towns and villages” (Mormon 4:20–22)
-Mormon goes to the hill Shim and takes up ALL the records (Mormon 4:23).
Boaz is still relatively close to all the preceding cities (Antum, Jashon, Desolation)
-in 379AD Nephites flee to Jordan, and repulse a Lamanite attack. (Mormon 5:4) They maintain a line of stronghold cities “that they could not get into the country which lay before us, to destroy the inhabitants of our land.” (Mormon 5:4)
Jordan is likely in the Southwest, one of a line of cities defending the land northward.
-in 384AD Mormon sends a letter to Lamanites requesting to gather to the land of Cumoruh “in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains;” (Mormon 6:4)

Jordan (line of cities)
Boaz (gets rest of records)
Teancum (by seashore & desolation)
Desolation (dead cast into sea)
Shem (fortified)
Jashon (gets records)
Joshua (west by seashore)


Comparing Book of Mormon Geography Models


Issues in the heartland Model

The Book of Mormon heartland model is a model first proposed by Rod Meldrum and others which places the entirety of Book of Mormon narrative in the Eastern United States of America. It seems to have arisen in response to perceived problems in the “limited Mesoamerican model”. These includes issues such as the ‘two Cumorah’ theory, early prophetic and apostolic quotes about Book of Mormon culture & individuals in North America, as well as the way Mesoamerican models appear to discount the many impressive North American prehistoric cultures which seem to fit well into the Book of Mormon narrative.


–  With the Eastern US heartland model, Nephi’s journey from eastern Arabia to America doesn’t really make sense.   A nearly fatal flaw is in Alma 22:28 which quite clearly explains that the Land of First Inheritance (first landing) was by the WEST seashore.  So if Lake Erie is the West Sea, how would they land there?  Where can you possibly place the Nephite landing “on borders by the seashore, and on the west” and make it fit with the Eastern United States?  Both Alma 22:28 and Mosiah 9:1 talk about the Land of Nephi and the “land of their first inheritance, after they had crossed the sea”, as if they can be used interchangeably. (ie. the Land of First Inheritance is IN or very near the land of Nephi.  We know the land of Nephi is south of the narrow neck.  So once again, how can ANY model which puts the narrow neck on the Great Lakes, or the land of Nephi in the hart of the US, make the place they first landed work? (pretending they came up the Mississippi also does not work, as the text clearly states the land of first inheritance is by the West SEASHORE..
– Many references to the West Sea run into this same problem!
–  The story of Hagoth makes little sense if the West Sea is the Great Lakes (and a completely difference sea than the one mentioned concerning thier first landing?). Hagoth is said to have “launched… forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward” (Alma 63:5).  But how do the ‘Great Lakes’ even really get you access to the Hearland Model’s “land northward” (Eastern Canada)?  They would only get you access the the Narrow Neck region’s of Bountiful and perhaps desolation (places in contact with Zarahemla), but the text suggest a LARGE distance saying that the people who left, “were never heard of more” (Alma 63:8). Reading the whole account in Alma 63:5–9, makes it clear that this model stretches the Book of Mormon text past it’s logical limits.
–  The land of Desolation which is an “exceedingly great distance” north from the Land of Zarahemla and Narrow Neck, also make very, very little sense if you try and place it in Canada. The text states that the land was the heartland of the Jaredite Civilization, covered in bones, and was “rendered desolate and without timber, because of the many inhabitants who had before inherited the land”  (Hel 3:3–8).  How can you get Eastern Canada to fit that description?  It is NOWHERE devoid of timber (until you get to the uninhabitable tundra). It has NO evidence of an ancient civilization and certainly not one that was “exceedingly expert in the working of cement” (Hel 3:7). It is SO WET that bones disintegrate within a few years, and would never be preserved the hundred years or so required by the text (from the Jaredite destruction to the Nephite exploration of the area).
–  Cumorah is SOUTH (in the land southward) of the narrow neck in the Heartland Model. The logically problematic, two Cumorah theory of Sorenson’s model is one of the reason’s the Heartland Model gains supporters.  But yet the Heartland model introduces a greater problem by putting the Hill Cumorah in the Land Southward. (since their ‘Narrow Necks’ are the ithsmas areas created by the Great Lakes). Mormon 2:20,29 makes it clear that the final Nephite retreat was “northward” from the Narrow Neck, and for at least 3 of the battle cities “in the borders west by the seashore” (Mormon 2:6–8, Mormon 3:8 & Mormon 4:3).  There is ABSOLUTELY no indication that the Nephites fled north of the Narrow neck into the Land Northward (where a treaty was made giving them the land Northward, Mormon 2:17), only to then circle around a Great Lake and then back south through a different narrow neck, back into the Land Southward to upstate New York (cumorah).  This logic slaughters the geography mentioned in the text.
–  The Mississippi River makes a poor match with the River Sidon for several of the following reasons.
–  The Sidon should empty into the “seas,” (Alma 3:3) which are the Great Lakes in the Heartland Model.  The Mississippi flows into the Gulf of Mexico, far away from these “seas.” In fact the head of Sidon can be placed south of Zarahemla, near the land of Manti (Alma 22:27,29; Alma 43:22). This requires hearlanders to make the “head” of the river, it’s mouth or delta. But even this simply doesn’t work with the geography laid out in Alma 56:25 where the “head of Sidon” is meantion in connection with Nephihah, which Alma 51:26 places on the East Sea.
–  The confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers as the “head” of the river Sidon is baffling logic. Nor does it work with the same scriptures listed above.
–  The Heartland Model has the land Bountiful southeast of Zarahemla; the Book of Mormon has it northward. (A map demonstrating these claims is available here, about a third of the way through.)
–  The Heartland Model elsewhere claims that Bountiful is directly north of the land of Nephi; in the Book of Mormon, Zarahemla is directly north of the land of Nephi.
–  The Heartland Model’s Land of Nephi does not stretch from east to west sea, as it would need to in order to match the Book of Mormon text.
–  The Book of Mormon has the sea west to the west of the Zarahemla and the land of Bountiful, but the Heartland Model has it east of Zarahemla and north of Bountiful.
– The land of first inheritance should be on the west sea, west from the land of Nephi.  The Heartland Model places it south of the land of Nephi, on the Gulf of Mexico that is not even one of the “seas” in his model.
–  Heartland Model uses a city founded by Mormons near Nauvoo (named “Zarahemla) to locate the Nephite city of Zarahemla.  The model ignores that it was settlers who started calling it Zarahemla first, not scripture or Joseph Smith.  The lines about Zarahemla were added later, for historical clarity, by an editor when the revelation was published.
–  Likewise, a city called “Manti” was ascribed to the prophet by later editors, but it was not in the original text.
–  Items in many models: armor, weapons, defensive works, cities, presence of dead bodies, bodies of water.
–  Heartland Model does not match the known archaeology of the Hopewell area that he wishes to make into the Nephites.
–  The Heartland Model’s seasonal and climate claims have problems; some Book of Mormon elements (e.g., extreme heat, rather than snow, in and end-of-the year battle) do not match his proposed geography.
–   The Heartland Model also misunderstands the evidence about population sizes and growth.
–   The Heartland Model misrepresents and misunderstands the issue of stone cities versus wood cities, and burning “stone” cities.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the Heartland model (as well as many others) is its complete disregard for the configuration of cities explained the the war chapters of Alma 42-54. Alma xx clearly explains that Moroni ‘pushed the Lamanites out of the east and west wilderness’ effectually creating a new border between Nephite to Lamanite lands which he then fortified with cities from the East to the West Sea. This configuration in the heartland model is virtually impossible unless you tuck the entirely of the lands of Nephi and Zarahemla in some little corner between the great lakes (such as the lower Peninsula of Michigan). However if you do this, you destroyed nearly every other correlative piece of evidence used by Heartlanders. From Zelph, to the D&C Zarahemla, to the Adena and Hopewell ruins.

see also this list.  (first adapted from a list compiled by Gregory Smith)


–  The greatest strengths of the heartland model are the ways

Issues in the Limited Mesoamerican or Mayan-land Models

The majority of Mesoamerican Book of Mormon geography models seek to correlate the Isthmus of Tehuantepec or the Isthmus of Guatemala. They far exceed the heartland models in their ability to synthesize the text with known archaeology. However, all of these models however suffer many of the same substantial problems.

–  They force the Book of Mormon into a small corner of North America, ignoring all inferences in the account which infer continental occupation. They correlate all Book of Mormon lands and peoples with merely two Mesoamerican people’s, while ignoring the largest and most influential cultures on the continent.
–  They require a “second Cumorah theory”.  Where Moroni wanders over 2000 miles after the final battle somewhere in Vera Cruz Mexico to get to New York to bury the plates.
–  Although Mayan models do a good job at finding cultural correlations, none of them have done a very good job at really matching individuals Book of Mormon cities with archaeological ruins. None of them can match Zerahemla or the city of Nephi with convincing archaeological ruins which match the level of prominence and significance afforded these cities in the text.
–  Teotihuacan and it’s Mexican highland culture, the largest and most influential city and culture in prehistoric North America, is mysteriously scant or absent from the Book of Mormon in these models (as well as Zapotec culture). By suggesting that it’s absence is the result of Teotihuacano culture post-dating the end of the B.O.M narrative (at ~420 AD) one has to wonder why the same standard isn’t held to Mayan culture (which also had a Zenith post dating B.O.M. times).  And even though the Teotihuacano zenith might have post-dated the date given for Nephite destruction, it was still a rapidly growing regional influence which by 420 AD eclipsed any of the cultures put forth for Zarahemla in predominate Mayan models. These models usually identify the Mexican Highland as “the land northward”… yet in Mormon’s description of the final flight to “Cumorah”, the land northward is said to be emptied of its inhabitants (ref). We see no such occurrence in the archaeology.
–  Supporters of this theory ignore many quotes by Joseph Smith and other early Saints which suggest a hemispheric model covering all the way from South America to New England.
– The story of Haggoth traveling to “the land Northward” from the West Sea, just doesn’t make much sense in these models. If the Land Northward is composed of areas like the Mexican Highland, Valley of Mexico or area of Vera Cruz, then why would Haggoth launch from the West Sea to get there? Only the East Sea would get you closer to these areas.
– The guarding of the “narrow neck” in preservation of “the land northward” doesn’t make much sense in these models.
– The Grijalva and Umacinta rivers seem a little to big to match with what the Book of Mormon describes of the River Sidon. The river needs to be small enough for a “numberless army” to easily cross (Alma x:xx), but big enough to carry away thousands of corpses. The river also needs to be in a deep canyon near where the battle and crossing took place (ref). And should also form a border of sorts in its areas south of Zarahemla (ref).
– Suggesting rivers that travel northward, makes the idea of throwing thousands of dead bodies in the river (which then would float through the land of Zarahemla) a bit counterintuitive (see Alma x.xx).
– They

Issues in the Mexican Highland Model

-The narrow neck does not fit the model presented in the text

-The Land of Desolation fits better with it being an area “desolate” because of lack of lumber than desolate because of the desolation of an older civilization.

Strengths of the Mexican Highland Model

-The match between the Jaredite “Great Dearth” and the Late Pleistocene Megafauna Extinctions is quite strong.
-The “Great City” built by the Narrow Neck of Land, “by the place where the sea divides the land” in Ether 12:20 could be a strong match to the Olmec City of San Lorenzo. Tenochtitlán, La Venta, Tres Zapotes, and Laguna de los Cerros follow shortly after. Building platforms are strangely similar to that of the earliest Adana.
-The distinct differences between the Mexican Highland Nahuatl cultures and the Mayan cultures matches well with the distinct differences between the Nephites and Lamanites.
-The emergence of language in Mesoamerica matches well with the Lehites bringing language to America. (especially epi-olmec/zapotec connection being at the heart of it)
-The similarities in Mayan writing and pyramids is awfully a lot like Egyptian writing and buildings.
-The pocket of Huestec people/language and its clear relationship to the Mayan language and Chiapa de corzo is a pretty big coincidence… it just happens to match perfectly to our land and people of Jershon who came from the Lamanite heartland in Oaxaca or Chiapas.
-The relationship of Uto-aztecan language in central mexico and its coming from Sinaloa (which is our land of desolation) is another crazy coincidence.
-I remember reading about another bit of evidence suggesting southern Oaxaca was in close ties with Chiapa de Corzo… which would be another huge coincidence.
-The match between Teotihuacan and Pahorans gathering of the people on the boundary of Zerahemla and Bountiful is an amazing match.
-The “no man’s land” in Oaxaca seems a lot like what it says of the city of Nephi, giving it to Zeniff and his people.

Time Line- Jaredites

± 14,000 BP Early PaleoIndian (earliest North American cultures develop) Jaredites Reach America (scripture account based on convoluted oral traditions?)  unknown*
(@Tower of Babel)
± 10,000-8,000 BC Clovis & Folsom cultures spread out from American Southwest Early Jaredite Culture spreads from the Land of Desolation.  unknown*
± 8,600-8,500 BC Bull Brook Complex and associated early New England sites Omer and his Household flee the cultural core to east of Cumorah  unknown*
± 9,500-6,000 BC Plano & Early Eastern Archaic Pre-Dearth Jaredite Culture  unknown*
~ 9,000 BC End of the Ice Age – Late Pleistocene Extinctions The Great Dearth in days of Heth  unknown*
±Ether 9:30–34, speaks of a climate event (great dearth) which causes the animals which were more especially “useful for the food of man”— such as “elephants and cureloms and cumoms” (Ether 9:19) to flee southward. The people then pursue the animals until they until they “had devoured them all” (v. 34). This scriptural event matches incredibly well with the archaeological evidence for North America megafauna extinctions (caused by climate and over-hunting).
± 1,400 BC Adena culture begins in the Ohio Valley. Lib builds up his empire in the Land Northward. ± 1200-300 BC?
± 1,400 BC Olmec culture begins to take off with the building of San Lorenzo. Lib builds a “great city” by the narrow neck of land in the Land Southward. ± 1200-300 BC?
± 6,000-1,500 BC Middle & Late Archaic Post-Dearth Jaredite Culture ± 1200-300 BC?
± 1,500 BC End of Archaic Cultures Jaredite Desolation ± 300 BC

*Jaredite dates are only approximate- the Book of Mormon does not give exact dates for Jaredite events and carbon dating has a large margin of error with these early dates

Making Sense of the Numbers of Genesis

Among the greatest stumbling blocks to faith in the Bible are the incredibly long ages of the patriarchs and the chronologies of Genesis 5 and 11 that seem to place the age of the Earth at about 6,000 years ago. The key to understanding the numbers in Genesis is that, in the Mesopotamian world view, numbers could have both real (numerical) and sacred (numerological or symbolic) meaning. The Mesopotamians used a sexagesimal (base 60) system of numbers, and the patriarchal ages in Genesis revolve around the sacred numbers 60 and 7. In addition to Mesopotamian sacred numbers, the preferred numbers 3, 7, 12, and 40 are used in both the Old and New Testaments. To take numbers figuratively does not mean that the Bible is not to be taken literally. It just means that the biblical writer was trying to impart a spiritual or historical truth to the text—one that surpassed the meaning of purely rational numbers. (Taken from a PDF at this link)

Author: Carol A. Hill

One of the greatest stumbling blocks to faith in the Bible has been, and is, the numbers found in Genesis—both the incredibly long ages of the patriarchs and the chronologies of Genesis 5 and 11 that seem to place the age of the Earth at about 6,000 years before present. As stated by Hugh Ross in the Genesis Question: “When readers encounter the long life spans in Genesis, they become convinced that the book is fictional, or legendary at best, whether in part or in whole.”1

Apologists have attempted to explain the long ages in Genesis in various ways.

1. Year-month-season explanation. This theory proposes that perhaps a “year” to the people of the ancient Near East had a different meaning than it does today. Instead of being marked by the orbit of the sun, a “year” then marked the orbit of the moon (a month) or a season (three months). Among the Greeks, years were sometimes called “seasons” (“horoi”), and this explanation of possible one-month or three-month equivalents of a year was mentioned by the ancient authors Pliny and Augustine, among others.2

However, this theory is nonsensical if one looks at the “begotting” ages of the patriarchs. If the ages for Adam and Enoch are divided by twelve (1 year = 1 month), then Adam would have fathered Seth at age eleven and Enoch would have been only five when he fathered Methuselah.3 Enoch’s age (65; Gen. 5:21) divided by four (1 year = 1 season) would result in an age of sixteen, which is biologically possible. But if the same number four is divided into 500— Noah’s age when his first son(s) were born (Gen. 5:32)—then the age of “begetting” would have been 125 years old, another unlikely possibility.

2. Astronomical explanations. Astronomical explanations also have been proposed to explain the incredibly long patriarchal ages. Perhaps the rotation period of the Earth has changed, so that the days then were not equivalent to those we have now. Or, perhaps a supernova could have damaged the Earth’s ozone layer, thus increasing ultraviolet radiation and systematically decreasing the age of humans.4 A problem with such astronomical explanations is that there is no concrete evidence for them. Some scientists have speculated that the transfer of angular momentum from the Earth to the moon over time has resulted in an appreciable increase in the length of a day.5 But this happened very early in Earth’s history—not within the last 10,000 years or less when the patriarchs lived. Similarly, there have been no known supernova explosions within the last 10,000 years that can account for the long ages of the patriarchs and a supposed decrease in the age of humans over time.

3. Tribal, dynasty, or “clan” explanation. Another explanation is that, when the Bible makes a statement like “Adam was the ‘father’ of Seth,” it means that the Adam “clan” had exercised dominion for 130 years (the age of Adam when Seth was born). In this view, Seth would be a direct-line descendent of Adam (grandson, great-grandson, etc.), but not the immediate son of Adam.6 Then, Seth’s “son” descendants would become part of the Seth dynasty or tribe. While this theory might have some merit, as will be described later in the Chronology section (p. 247), it is not in accord with the personal encounters that the “fathers” supposedly had with their “sons”; e.g., Noah was 500 years when his son(s) were born (Gen. 5:32), yet he coexisted with them on the ark (Gen. 7:13).

4. Canopy theory explanation. Other people have tried to explain the long ages of the patriarchs by creating a “different world” for pre-Flood humans. Whitcomb and Morris’ explanation of these long ages fits with their idea of a vapor canopy.7 Before Noah’s Flood this canopy supposedly shielded Earth from harmful radiation so that people could live to a very old age. After the Flood, harmful radiation slowly increased so that the patriarchs’ ages exhibit a slow and steady decline to the biblical life span of 70 years mentioned in Ps. 90:10.

The problem with the canopy theory is that there is not one shred of geologic or physical evidence to support it. In addition, there is no archaeological evidence that substantiates incredibly long ages for people in the past—either in Mesopotamia or anywhere else. It is known that humans living in the Bronze Age (which time span includes most of the patriarchs) had an average life span of about forty years, based on human skeletons and legal documents of the time.8 If infants and children are included in this life-span average, it would be even lower. Examination of skeletons in a number of graves at al’Ubaid (one of the oldest known archaeological sites in Mesopotamia) has indicated that some people lived to be over sixty—a great age at that time.9 A wisdom text from Emar describes the stages of a man’s life as follows: forty as prime, fifty as a short time (in which case he died young), sixty as “wool” (that is, gray hair), seventy as a long time, eighty as old age, and ninety as extreme old age.10

How then can the great ages of the patriarchs and other problematic numbers of Genesis be explained? Does one have to construct a fantastical world based on fantastical ages in order to come up with an adequate explanation? The answer is quite simple—if one considers the “world view” or “mind-set” of the people living in the age of the patriarchs; that is, the Mesopotamians (the people who lived in what is now mostly Iraq) and the Hebrews in Palestine descended from the Mesopotamians. This world view includes both the religious ideas of these people and the numerical system used by them.

The Mesopotamian System of Numbers

The Mesopotamians were the first to develop writing, astronomy, mathematics (algebra and geometry), a calendar, and a system of weights and measures, accounting, and money.11 Even as early as the Ubaid Period (~3800– 5500 BC), Mesopotamian architects were familiar with numerous geometric principles such as 1:2, 1:4, 3:5, 3:4:5 and 5:12:13 triangles for laying out buildings,12 and by ~3000 BC scribes were working with unrealistically large and small numbers.13 The Mesopotamians were the first to arrive at logarithms and exponents from their calculations of compound interest,14 they knew how to solve systems of linear and quadratic equations in two or more unknowns,15 and they calculated the value of pi () to an accuracy of 0.6%.16 The so-called Pythagorean Theorem was invented by the Mesopotamians more than 1,000 years before Pythagoras lived, and was known not only for special cases, but in full generality.17

Sexagesimal Numbers

The mathematical texts of the Sumerians or Babylonians (people who lived in southern Mesopotamia) show that these people were regularly using a sexagesimal numbering system at least by Uruk time (~3100 BC). Along with the numbers sixty and ten on which their combined sexagesimaldecimal system was based, the number six was also used in a special “bi-sexagesimal system.”18 Examples of the Mesopotamian sexagesimal system are still with us today in the form of the 360º circle, with 60-minute degrees and 60-second minutes, and with respect to time, the 60- minute hour and 60-second minute. The Mesopotamians’ sexagesimal basis for time is also reflected in their 360-day (60 x 6) year, where a “13th month” (called iti dirig) was added every sixth year to make up for the days in an actual 365-day solar year.19 A sexagesimal (base 60) system made it possible for the Sumerians to construct a family of nicely interrelated measurement systems, with sequences of naturally occurring standard units that were easy to deal with in computation.20

One disadvantage of the Sumerian numbering system was ambiguity. The Sumerians wrote their system of numbers in cuneiform—a series of wedged marks impressed onto clay tablets. Although the Babylonians had developed the important principle of “position” (place-value notation) in writing numbers, the absolute value of the digits impressed on cuneiform tablets remained a matter of intelligent guesswork.21 Another uncertainty was introduced through the fact that a blank space in a cuneiform text could sometimes mean zero (the Mesopotamians had no symbol for zero).22 In practice, these types of ambiguities were not that serious for Mesopotamian scribes because the order of magnitude and position of the numbers could be realized from the context of the tablet (e.g., whether one was denoting rations of barley, rings of silver, or whatever). However, such contextual ambiguities could have created confusion for later Hebrew biblical scribes who were not familiar with the sexagesimal system and its peculiarities.

Despite the inherent difficulties in the Mesopotamians’ sexagesimal numbering system, these are not considered to be the major problem when it comes to understanding the ages of the patriarchs. The most important consideration in this regard is the Mesopotamians’ concept of sacred numbers.

Sacred Numbers

The Mesopotamians incorporated two concepts of numbers into their world view: (1) numbers could have real values, and (2) numbers could be symbolic descriptions of the sacred. “Real” numbers were used in the everyday administrative and economic matters of accounting and commerce (receipts, loans, allotment of goods, weights and measures, etc.), construction (architecture), military affairs, and taxation. But certain numbers of the sexagesimal system, such as sossos (60), neros (600), and saros (3600) occupied a special place in Babylonian mathematics and astronomy.23 In religion, the major gods of Mesopotamia were assigned numbers according to their position in the divine hierarchy. For example, Anu, the head of the Mesopotamians’ pantheon of gods, was assigned sixty, the most perfect number in the hierarchy. In addition, the Mesopotamians sometimes used numbers cryptographically; e.g., names could have a corresponding numerical value. For example, during the construction of his palace at Khorsubad, Sargon II stated: “I built the circumference of the city wall 16,283 cubits, the number of my name.”24

The sacred numbers used by the Mesopotamians gave a type of religious dignity or respect to important persons or to a literary text … [and] fit into [their] world view of symmetry and harmony.

At least from the late third millennium BC onward, “sacred numbers” were used in religious affairs for gods, kings, or persons of high standing. Just as a name held a special significance to the ancients (e.g., Noah, Gen. 5:29)—beyond its merely being a name—a number could also have meaning in and of itself. That is, the purpose of numbers in ancient religious texts could be numerological rather than numerical. 25 Numerologically, a number’s symbolic value was the basis and purpose for its use, not its secular value in a system of counting. One of the religious considerations of the ancients involved in numbers was to make certain that any numbering scheme worked out numerologically; i.e., that it used, and added up to, the right numbers symbolically. This is distinctively different from a secular use of numbers in which the overriding concern is that numbers add up to the correct total arithmetically. Another way of looking at it is that the sacred numbers used by the Mesopotamians gave a type of religious dignity or respect to important persons or to a literary text.

Sacred numbers also fit into the Mesopotamians’ world view of symmetry and harmony, which was at the core of their meaning of life. It was important to associate one’s life with the right numbers and to avoid wrong numbers that might bring disharmony (kind of like the Chinese concept of Yin and Yang). Symbolic numbers were of highest value in religious texts because they were considered to be the carriers of ultimate truth and reality. And what was the “really big” unit to the Mesopotamians—the number around which their whole mathematical system revolved? It was the number sixty (and to a lesser degree the number ten), or some combination of these two numbers (e.g., 60÷10 = 6; 60 x 10 = 600).26 Because sixty was considered to be the fundamental unit of the sexagesimal system, it is not surprising that it came to be thought of as sacred.

The Mesopotamian-Biblical Connection

Scholars in biblical and Mesopotamian studies have tried over the years to show the common traditions of both cultures, including the creation and flood stories and the numbers contained in Genesis. Stories from the ancient Akkadian (northern Mesopotamia) and Sumerian (southern Mesopotamia) cultures also tell of extraordinarily long life spans of important persons. This is not proof of long life spans, only that the two cultures were connected in their dual concept of sacred and secular numbers, and that people from both cultures were educated in essentially the same mathematical curriculum.27 Similar to the Mesopotamians, the Egyptians had exaggerated “long reigns” for their gods and kings,28 and this seems to have been a common religious tradition for peoples of the ancient Near East. A number of scholars have specifically attempted to mathematically determine a numerical connection between the long time spans in the Sumerian king lists and the long ages of the patriarchs in Genesis,29 but despite these attempts, there still remains no absolute demonstrable relationship between the two besides a superficial similarity.30

What has emerged from such comparative studies, however, is that the concept of numbers has changed over time (Table 1). While the Mesopotamians used a sexagesimal-based system, the Hebrews centuries later were using only a decimal-based system.

A possible scenario for this noted change is: When Abraham left Mesopotamia (Ur) for Palestine, he and his descendants came in contact with other Semitic peoples and the Egyptians who were using the decimal system.31 Thus, gradually the decimal system replaced the sexagesimal system in the Hebrews’ numerical world view as they moved from Mesopotamia to Palestine to Egypt and back to Palestine. Certainly Moses, the author of Genesis, would have used the decimal system, having been raised and educated in Egypt, but perhaps some of the numerological elements of the Mesopotamians’ world view remained in the Hebrew culture even at this time. It seems certain that a sound and really historical chronology had become established in Israel by the time of David (~900 BC), as two hundred or so chronological dates in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are, with a few exceptions, of remarkable consistency.32 But even then, and long after, preferred or figurative numbers continued to be used throughout both the Old and New Testaments. During the Middle Ages, the concept of “sacred” numbers was lost, and it was not until the discovery and publication of the Babylonian mathematical texts in the second quarter of the twentieth century that the numerological nature of the patriarchal ages was rediscovered.33

This change in the conception of numbers may be the reason for the overall general decrease of patriarchal “begetting” ages and life-spans over time (from 930 years for Adam down to 175 years for Abraham; Table 2). The tendency to use exaggerated sacred numbers decreased after the Hebrews left Mesopotamia and slowly acquired a different numerical world view in Palestine and Egypt. However, in the generally decreasing age trend, there is an enormous jump in the “begetting” age of Noah (Table 2). This may signify an attempt by the biblical writer to favor the more righteous, or those who “stand out” from the rest due to their promi

TABLE 1: How the Concept of Numbers May Have Changed over Time



The rest of the article can be read here…

Protected: Finding the Book of Mormon Narrow Neck.

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Book of Mormon Geography Scriptures & Notes

[A] Aaron, city/cities of
Alma 8:13; 50:14

Ether 9:3

Ether 14:15–16

Akish, wilderness of
Ether 14:3–4, 14

Alma, valley of
Mosiah 24:20, 21

Ammonihah, city of
Alma 8:6–13, 16–18; chs. 9-14; 15:1, 15; 16:2-3, 9, 11; 25:2; 49:3, 10-11

Amnihu, hill
-Amlicites come upon it, and battle Alma and his Army.
-Very near Zarahemla, (“up” from Zarahemla)
-Directly east of River Sidon (Alma 2:17)
Alma 2:15

Amulon, land of
Mosiah 23:31; 24:1

Angola, city of
Mormon 2:4

Alma 21:11

Antionum, land of
Alma 31:3; 43:5, 22

Antiparah, city of
Alma 56:14, 31–34; 57:1-4

Antipas, mount
Alma 47:7, 10

Antum, land of
Mormon 1:3

[B] Boaz, city of
Mormon 4:20–21

Bountiful, city/land of
Alma 22:29–33; 27:22; 50:11, 32; 51:28, 30-32; 52:9, 15,17-18, 39; 53:3-4; 55:26; 63:5; Helaman 1:23, 28; 4:6; 5:14; 3 Nephi 3:23; 11:1

[C] Comnor, hill
Ether 14:28

Corihor, land/valley of
Ether 14:27–28

Cumeni, city of
Alma 56:13–14; 57:7-8, 12, 23, 31, 34

Cumorah, land/hill of
Mormon 6:2–6, 11; 8:2

[D] Desolation, city of
Mormon 3:7; 4:2, 3, 8, 13, 19

Desolation, land of
Alma 50:34; 63:5; 3 Nephi 3:23; Mormon 3:5; 4:1-2, 19; Ether 7:6

[E] Ephraim, hill
Ether 7:9

[G] Gad, city of
3 Nephi 9:10

Gadiani, city of
3 Nephi 9:8

Gadiomnah, city of
3 Nephi 9:8

Gid, city of
Alma 51:26; 55:7-26

Gideon, city/land/valley of
-named after Gideon who was killed by Nehor (6:7-8)
-Nehor lived here or near here? thus near Ammonihah who were his converts?
-east of the river Sidon (Alma 6:7)
-first church Alma visited after putting Zarahemla in order. Thus close (next door) to Zarahemla. (Alma 6:8)
Alma 2:20–26; 6:7-8:1; 17:1; 30:21; 61:5; 62:3-6

Gilgal, city/valley of
3 Nephi 9:6; Ether 13:27–30

Gimgimno, city of
3 Nephi 9:8

[H] Helam, city/land of
Mosiah 23:3–4, 19–20, 25–26, 29, 35, 37–39; 27:16

Hermounts, wilderness of
Alma 2:37

Heshlon, plains of
Ether 13:2–8

[I] Ishmael, land of
Alma 17:19–21; 20:14-15; 21:20-21; 22:4; 23:7-9; 24:5; 25:1

[J] Jacob, city of
3 Nephi 9:8

Jacobugath, city of
3 Nephi 9:9

Jashon, city/land of
Mormon 2:16–17

Jershon, land of
Alma 27:22–24, 26; 28:1, 8; 30:1, 19-21; 35:6, 13-14; 43:4, 15, 18, 25

Jerusalem, city/land
Alma 21:1–4; 24:1; 3 Nephi 9:7

Jordan, city of
Mormon 5:3

Josh, city of
3 Nephi 9:10

Joshua, land of
Mormon 2:6

Judea, city of
Alma 56:9, 15, 18, 57; 57:11

[L] Laman, city of
3 Nephi 9:10

land northward
Alma 22:32

land southward
Alma 22:32

Lehi, city/land of
Alma 50:15, 25–28, 36; 56:24, 26; 62:30; Helaman 6:10

Lehi-Nephi, city/land of
Mosiah 7:1–4, 21; 9:1-6, 8

Lemuel, city of
Alma 23:12–13

[M] Manti, city/land of
Alma 16:6–7; 17:1; 22:27; 43:22, 24-54; 56:14; 58:26-30; 59:6

Manti, Hill
-Nehor is executed here after trial in Zarahemla. Thus just outside Zarahemla
Alma 1:15

Melek, land of
Alma 8:3–4; 35:13; 45:18

Middoni, land of
Alma 20:2–3, 4–7, 14–15, 28–30; 21:12-13, 18; 23:10

Midian, land of
Alma 24:5

Minon, land of
Alma 2:24

Mocum, city of
3 Nephi 9:7

Moriancumer, land of
Ether 2:13

Morianton, city/land of
Alma 50:25, 36; 51:26; 55:33; 59:4-5

Moroni 9:9–10

Mormon, place/waters/forest of
Mosiah 18:4–16, 30–35; 25:18; 26:15; Alma 5:3

Moron, land of
Ether 7:5–6, 17; 14:6, 11

Moroni, city/land of
-drown in sea at time of Christ.
Alma 50:13; 51:22-24; 59:5; 62:25, 32-34; 3 Nephi 8:9; 9:4

Moronihah, city of
-a mountains comes upon it at the time of Christ.
3 Nephi 8:10, 25; 9:5

Mulek, city/land of
Alma 51:26; 52:2, 16-26; 53:2, 6; Helaman 6:10

[N] narrow neck of land
Alma 22:32; 63:5

narrow pass
Alma 50:34; 52:9; Mormon 2:29; 3:5

Nehor, city of
Ether 7:9

Nephi, city of
Mosiah 9:15; 21:1, 12; Alma 23:11; 47:20; 47:31

Nephi, land of
2 Nephi 5:8; Omni 1:12, 27–30; Words of Mormon 1:13; Mosiah 7:6–9; chs. 9-22; 28:1-9; 29:3; Alma 2:24; chs.
17-26; 27:1, 20; 28:8; 47:1, 20; 50:8; 53:6; 58:38; Helaman 4:12; 5:20

Nephihah, city/land/plains of
Alma 50:14; 51:24-26, 59:5-11; 62:14, 18-26, 30

Noah, city/land of
Alma 49:12–15

[O] Ogath
Ether 15:10

Ornner, city of
Alma 51:26

Alma 47:5

Onidah, hill
Alma 32:4

Onihah, city of
3 Nephi 9:7

[R] Ramah, hill
Ether 15:11

Riplah, hill
Alma 43:31, 35

Ripliancum, waters of
Ether 15:8

[S] Sebus, waters of
Alma 17:26, 34; 18:7; 19:20

Shem, city/land of
Mormon 2:20–21

Shemlon, land of
Mosiah 10:7; 11:12; 19:6; 20:1-5; 24:1; Alma 23:12

Moroni 9:16–17

Sherrizah, tower of
Moroni 9:7

Shilom, city/land of
Mosiah 7:7, 21; 9:6, 8, 14; 10:8, 20; 11:12-13; 22:8-11; 24:1; Alma 23:12

Shim, hill
Mormon 13; 4:23; Ether 9:3

Shimnilom, city of
Alma 23:8, 12

Shurr, valley of
Ether 14:28

Sidom, land of
Alma 2:15, 3, 11, 13–17

Sidon, river
-a hill called a Amnihu lies east of it. (Alma 2:15)
-runs by the land of Zarahemla. (Alma 2:15)
-deep enough near gideon to throw bodies into and have them float to sea. (Alma 3:3)
-is the chosen location for baptism of those in Land of Zarahemla. (Alma 4:4)
Alma 2:15, 34; 4:4; 22:29

Siron, land of
Alma 39:3

[T] Teancum, city of
Mormon 4:3–8, 14

[Z] Zarahemla, city of
Alma 2:26; 5:2; 6:1-7; 7:3-5; 8:1; 31:6; 56:25; 60:1; Helaman 1:18–33; 7:10; 13:12; 3 Nephi 8:8, 24; 9:3;
4 Nephi 1:8

Zarahemla, land of
Omni 1:12–13, 24, 28; Mosiah 1:1, 18; 2:4; 7:9, 13-14; 8:1-8, 14; 9:2; 21:24-26; 22:11-13; 24:25; 25:19-23; 27:35; 29:44; Alma 2:15–25; 4:1; 5:1; 15:18; 16:1; 22:32; 27:5-20; 28:1; 35:14; 59:4; 60:30; 62:6-7; Helaman 3:31; 4:5; 5:16-19; 6:4; 7:1; 13:2; 3 Nephi 3:22–23; Mormon 1:6

Zeezrom, city of
Alma 56:13–14

Zerin, mount
Ether 13:30

MesoAmerican/Mayan influence on Mississippian Culture


Recently, claims of Maya migrations to Georgia have gotten a lot of attention. A long-standing pattern interprets North America as a backwater that absorbed influences from Mesoamerica, repeatedly assumed to be more advanced. in “America’s Lost City,” Andrew Lawler lays out a body of archaeological evidence for major mound complexes in Louisiana and Illinois that predate the Maya and even Olmec ceremonial complexes. (Sorry, link does not give the full article:


First, the great ceremonial center of Cahokia was even larger than first imagined. They started excavating East St Louis in a big rush before the building of a bridge and road, and found out that Cahokia extended to that area ten km to its east. It was a vast metropolis, home to tens of thousands of people. They traded extensively with faraway places, and settlements closely linked to Cahokia have been found in places like Trempeauleau, Wisconsin. “As recently as the 1950s, a popular scientific theory touted ancient Mayans rather than Native Americans as the mounds’ creators.” But Lawler says scholars are reevaluating things in the light of evidence that the roots of the mound-building cultures “stretch back even earlier than the grand civilizations of Mesoamerica.” Cahokia itself, if it had been found in the Maya country, “would be a top 10 of all Mesoamerican cities,” in the words of John Clark.


It’s well known that the largest mound there equates in footprint to the Great Pyramid, in circumference to the Pyramid of the Sun in Mexico. Scholars have authenticated mound alignments with sunrise at solstices and equinoxes. Archaeologists are excavating another ceremonial settlement 64 km to the south of Cahokia, with its own plaza and mounds. They are finding that people came from all over the Midwest to settle here. There were workshops making ornaments from pipestone, red jasper, copper, and other materials. They’ve also investigated why the city collapsed around 1300, with extensive evidence of floods, droughts, and other changes in weather.

The curved rows of mounds at Poverty Point, circa 1400 bceThe curved rows of mounds at Poverty Point, circa 1400 bce

But Cahokia is fairly well known. The more significant information in this article is the demonstration of the antiquity of mound-building cultures in the Mississippi and Ohio river basins. I’ve posted images here before from Poverty Point, Louisiana, which was another ceremonial complex far older than Cahokia. These northern lands of Louisiana are rich in mounds and ancient villages with radiocarbon dates back to the Middle Archaic period “which ended at about 3000 BCE.”  Lawler contextualizes this for us: “That’s nearly 2 millennia before the first cities appeared in Mexico, before the Giza periods, and about the same time that the world’s first major urban centers evolved in ancient Mesopotamia [Iraq]. Most researchers dismissed the dates as erroneous.” Yes, they often do when evidence contradicts their expectations. Archaeologist Joseph Saunders began to study the mounds in northern Louisiana: the six mounds at Hedgepeth, another six at Frenchman’s Bend, along with village remains, and Watson Brake with eleven mounds, and dates going back to 3500 bce. Saunders lays out three major cultural waves of mound-creation. The first emerged in the lower Mississippi valley, 3700-2700 bce. The second, in the same region, centered on Pottery Point, 1600-1000 bce, with a gigantic flying bird mound, 22 m tall and 200m long. It lies atop another set of concentric hemispherical earthworks that covers three hectares, along with other conical and platform mounds. The people here had a vast trade network reaching to the Great Lakes. They made female figurines of clay, carved animals of jasper and other fine stones, and large numbers of bone awls show that they were working leather.

Clay figurines from Poverty Point, LousianaClay figurines from Poverty Point, Lousiana

Even more intriguingly, archaeologists are discovering, “The proportions used at the Louisiana sites closely match those found in Mesoamerica.” They are now considering the possibility that Louisiana may have influenced the Mexican civilization rather than vice versa.  The third period of mound construction started in the early centuries CE, in the Ohio river network of the Adena and “Hopewell” cultures, and culminated with Cahokia, Moundville, Alabama, and other medieval American temple complexes.


After the European conquests, many mounds became overgrown and no longer even recognizable as made by humans. “Mostly, the mounds were ignored and then destroyed.” Farmers leveled them, treasure hunters ransacked them, as they did to Spiro Mound in Oklahoma, and cities bulldozed them. The shellmounds in California were similarly destroyed, the burials taken away by the tens of thousands, and still held captive in museums like the Lowie at UC – Berkeley. In Peru, treasure-seekers went so far as to divert streams in the attempt of laying open the adobe pyramids of the Moche. This process of destruction continues today. These historical monuments of immeasurable value are subject to the whims of property owners. The article describes how developers planned to destroy the mounds at Frenchman’s Bend, some of the oldest known, so that they could make a golf course on the site. State and federal law offer no protections for these heritage sites. The archaeologists scramble to talk owners into preserving them, and sometimes even buy up the land to protect the mounds.



I just ran across a reference to dramtic corroborating evidence from Mexican archaeology. Tom Gidwitz in “Cities upon Cities” in Archaeology magazine, Jul/Aug 2010, writes about how new digs in Huastec country “may reveal links between Huasteca settlements and mound-building cultures in the United States.” He continues: “For decades, archaeologists have theorized that North America’s Late Woodland and Mississippian cultures drew inspiration from the Huastecas, but after their excavations at Tamtoc in the 1990s, Dávila and Zaragoza became convinc…ed that cultural influence, and perhaps actual migration, spread from north to south. They unearthed objects that seemed to come from the American Southeast in about AD 900: a fragment of a sheet of hammered copper, a pointed metal hand tool, a piece of engraved shell, a cache of a dozen whole and 20 fragmented Cahokia projectile points, and pottery that could have come from sites to the north such as Etowah [Georgia] and Moundville [Alabama].”I pulled this quote off of a fragmentary jpg on the net. When i track down the article, I’ll post more about it. In the meantime, here are two engraved shells whose stylistic similarity struck me a decade ago. On the right, from the Mound-temple cultures of the Mississippi basin, and on the left, from the Huastecs of eastern Mexico, the very group now being investigated for northern cultural influences. Check out the hatch-marking especially.



Right: Mississippi basin; left: Huastec, Veracruz, Mexico.


reblogged from

In this case it is taken as a given that the Mississippian cultures are a cultural conglomerate: MESOAMERICA IS ONE OF THOSE CULTURAL CENTERS WHICH GOES INTO THAT CONGLOMERATE. We already KNOW that the temple mounds come out of Mesoamerican pyramids and are something new and different when they come into the mound area. Similarly, there are other features which seem to be part of that same package that came with the idea of those temple mounds. So going around saying “No Mayas here, HaHaHaHaHa!” does not automatically make the person that says it sound smart. The whole reasoning on that score seems to be that the presumption is absurd. The presumption is NOT absurd, it is already a given that something along those lines MUST have occurred. These cultures do not exist eternally as unchanging packages that evolved locally and never had any outside input from cultures further off. THAT is the absurd pretense. There is no assumption that the temple mounds simply involved in situ from burial mounds: there was a radical change in what the mounds meant and what they were made for.

We are talking about the Yucatan Mayas. It is known as an established fact that these Mayas traded as far as Puerto Rico and that there are many of their characteristic ball courts there. The location in question in Georgia is as far from Yucatan as Puerto Rico is, by direct measure on the map.

Now then, as to The Examiner. I do not know what kind of intellectual elitism is going on here but conceptually there is little difference between a “content farm” and the Wikipedia. IN THEORY the Wikipedia should be better checked and independently confirmed. In actual practice, I have found all too many time I have put quite valid information up on Wikipedia only to see it repeatedly torn down by some know-nothing that has their own pet theory to push, and they can quite obviously fly in the face of published authority and even mathematical proofs if only they are persistent enough. The end result is that anybody in the world can put something up on Wikipedia and the information can bear little relationship to the truth of the matter. So I would say don’t go around looking to ANY one authority, ALL authorities have flaws. Read all you can from every source you can, and don’t take anything anybody ever tells you at face value. I loved my mom dearly, but when I became an adult I found that all through my childhood she had been giving me misinformation that was deliberately meant to warp my views. And there was no malice to it, she simply believed very firmly in certain wrong things and she would drum those wrong things into me.

But actually, if something is true it will be true no matter who should say it, and if a matter is false it will be false no matter who says it. The whole basic concept of a “Reliable source” can be misleading, nobody is ever 100% correct. After a while you will come to know what is a good idea or a bad idea from your own perspective. And I am not about to try to tell you what you should think is right or wrong for you, all I can do is make some suggestions about what sounds right or wrong from MY perspective.


The first feature to be noted is that a new ethnic element intrudes into the Mississippi Valley area at the beginning of Mississippian times. They show traits of their cranial anatomy which resemble Mexicans and Mayans more than the Eastern Woodlands tribes and they tend to be somewhat shorter. They also deform their skulls in the same way as the Mayans do. Yes, they are coneheads. At some Mississippian sites it is difficult to find skulls which were NOT deformed in infancy.

The next thing to be noted is that they represent themselves artistically in a manner reminiscent of the Mayans and other South-Mexican cultures, with similar red-pottery figurines:

Now as to the pottery which is allegedly just like Mayan Pottery: That part is true also but it does not begin to tell the whoile story. In fact this is something which has been known for a long time and is one of the key features to understanding the Mississippian cultures. In 1928, Dr. G. C. Valiant published Resemblances in Ceramics of Central and North America, after doing a series of investigations in Mexico for the American Museum of Natural History. He had discovered a series of ceramic traits which he called the “Q Complex” for convenience’s sake. He introduced his subject with these words:

I shall endeavour to call attention to several curious parallels found mainly in the ceramics of Central America and the Southwestern and Southeastern United States That seem to indicate some sort of a relationship, even taking into account the barrier of five hundred kilometers of archaeologically unknown territory…While the Antillean influence on the far southeastern United States is attributable to direct contact[and known settlements over much of Florida-DD]…The traits existing in the pottery of the Western drainage of the Mississippi and to a lesser degree in Tennessee [and adjoining Georgia and Alabama-DD], however, are of a character that indicates a stronger source of infection than a symbolism brought in perhaps by exiles from another land. In short, in the Western Mississippi valley, there exists apparently some sort of action by one culture upon another. These ceramic traits which are quite foreign to the run of the pottery of the eastern states include:

1. Tripod support of vessels.

2.Funnel-necked jars.

3.Double-bodied jars.

4.Rarely, the shoe form of vessel.

5.the high and low form of annular base for vessels.

6. Spout handles

7.the composite silhouette form of bowl.

8. Vessels modeled in the effigy of animals or humans.

9. Vessels with spouts, in plain and in effigy

10. Vessels with the head or features attached


And ended with the conclusions that:

It does not seem possible to explain away such parallels as these by independent invention of styles since the basis of the ceramic development of the Eastern United States does not seem to contain the germs for this Western Mississippi [ie. Mississippian-DD] complex. Nor from this same lack of transitional steps is it probable that the styles developed there and moved South. Yet to what epoch and to what culture in Central America, on the other hand, do these forms relate?

As an inexplicable residue among the ceramics of Guatemala, Honduras, Salvador and Costa Rica, occur such traits as composite silhouette, decoration by incision [Mississippian example below-DD], support of vessels by legs or cylinders, spouted vessels, pot stands and effigy forms. These elements obtain under such conditions of antiquity as beneath the volcanic ash of Salvador, under the Old Empire Maya remains at Homul and Uaxactun, and are associated with pre-Maya material at the Finca Arevalo in Guatemala. [the traits are also present down to Peru and absent over much of Mexico, Vaillant recounts]…Doctor Lothrop and this writer designated these elements as influence Q, since we know neither their center of distribution nor their makers. This complex occupies in Central America a position analogous to the relation between the primitive cultures in the Valley of Mexico and the Toltec and Aztec cultures.

In other words, we are not only talking Mayan ceramics, we are talking old, basic traditional Mayan ceramics. Something that the country people would remember when their elite rulers had been taken away, and pottery traits which would not have been transmitted by way of Northern Mexico primarily.

As I had mentioned before, the Mississippian houses were built according to the usual Mayan plan. To be frank, these are nothing like the wigwams common in the eastern United States, they are tropical huts.

The high steep-sided roofs are designed to shed heavy tropical rainfall and designs much like this are common in Northern South America and also in Indonesia (They are also used to indicate the possibility of TransPacific diffusion between those other two regions, along with use of the BLOWGUN, which the Mayas also had. The duplication of blowgun technology on both sides of the Pacific is something that is hard for non-diffusionists to explain)

And then of course the most obvious and characteristic feature of the Mississippian cultures is the creation and use of the stepped-pyramid temple mounds, built along parallel principles but using earth instead of stone as the construction material. And this came with a version of Mesoamerican pyramid ceremonialism, placement around a plaza,human sacrifice, headhunting and veneration of human skulls.

And besides building pyramids after a design similar to the Mayan pyramids at Chichen Itza, the people carried a name by which they seem to have called themselves, Itsas. a hundred years ago or more, this was not even questioned, it was taken for granted that these people had come from that part of the Yucatan and that is why they were using that name.


I had begun to develop a very long and involved followup to this article on linguistics, making very involved and complicated arguments, but then I saw how the situation could be represented most easily. In the Wikipedia entry discussing the validity or non-validity of the so-called Amerind linguistic superfamily, a long list of languages is included. I excerpt part of the listing here:


  1. Penutian
  2. Gulf
  3. Atakapa
  4. Chitimacha
  5. Muskogean
  6. Natchez
  7. Tunica
  8. Yukian
  9. Mexican Penutian
  10. Huave
  11. Mayan
  12. Mixe–Zoque
  13. Totonac


Clay figurines discovered on the Mann Hopewell Site show faces with slanted eyes, which were not a Hopewell feature. Some believe the figurines show a connection between Indiana and Central or South America.

Olmec-like Hopewell figure-ens found at Mann Site in Indianna. Other long distance trade goods, like obsidian from Yellowstone and Grizzly Bear teeth from the Rockies were found.

“It’s like Vegas … for archaeologists,” says Mike Linderman, who manages state historic sites in western Indiana. Linderman says the Mann Hopewell Site is bigger than its more famous Hopewell counterparts in Ohio, and it’s filled with even more exotic materials, like obsidian glass that has been traced to the Yellowstone Valley in Wyoming, and grizzly bear incisor teeth.

“Grizzly bears obviously are not from Indiana, never have been,” Linderman says. “There’s a theory out there now that instead of being trade items, these items [were] actually being collected by the people from Mann Site on rite-of-passage trips they [were] taking out to the West. You know, it’s something big if you’ve killed a grizzly bear and you can bring its teeth back to Indiana.”

Jaguars and panthers aren’t from Indiana, either, but they show up at the Mann Hopewell Site as beautifully detailed carvings. Put them together with clay figurines that have slanted eyes — not a Hopewell feature — and Linderman says we could be looking at a connection between Indiana and Central or South America.


Exotic artifacts found at Tamtoc on Mexico’s East Coast

Perhaps the best evidence of north south trade between Mesoamerica and the Eastern United States were a serious of articacts found in Tamtoc, Mexico.

From  (published in the magazine Archaeology dated to 2010)


The results may reveal links between Huasteca settlements and mound building cultures in the United States. For decades, archaeologists have theorized that North America’s Late Woodland and Mississippian cultures drew inspiration from the Huasteca, but Davila and Zaragoza’s excavations at Tamtoc in the 1990s convinced them that cultural influence, and perhaps actual migration, spread from north to south. They unearthed objects that seemed to come from the American Southeast in about A.D. 900—a fragment of a sheet of hammered copper, a pointed metal hand tool, a piece of engraved shell, a cache of a dozen whole and twenty fragmented Cahokia projectile points, and pottery that could have come from sites to the north such as Etowah, and Moundville. When they dug into a terrace beside the site’s western mound, they found that, like the mounds at Cahokia, it had been piled up layer-by-layer in basket-sized loads, with dirt from pits that became the lagoons around the site.

“We dug and dug and dug,” says Davila, “but I understood nothing.” Then he read Garcilaso de la Vega’s La Florida del Inca, an account of the 1539 Hernando de Soto expedition to the Southeast. It describes huge Indian trade and war canoes that plied the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the rivers of the Southeast. “We think there was a migration by sea,” says Davila.

Scholars have long recognized that both the Southeast and Huasteca had towns with artificial lagoons and platform mounds with thatched structures on top, engraved shell jewelry, imagery of feathered dancers, stone pipes, and ghostly pots that represent the dead with closed eyes, open mouths, and filed teeth. They have theorized that the cultural influence flowed from Mesoamerica northward, but the Tamtoc artifacts, other mounds in the Huasteca, and the region’s incised shell gorgets, post-date their earliest North American counterparts.

University of South Florida archaeologist Nancy White says that major cultural influences, as well as people, may well have traveled north to south. “We know other things may have moved from North to South America, things that may be considered less important or equally important, like tobacco.” The Mississippian motifs of the Late Prehistoric period that appear in the Huasteca do indicate that “at this late time people were probably moving around and sharing these ideas, but just a few things.” In the field, Martínez and Córdova want to see for themselves.

Physical anthropologist Carlos Karam has taken bite molds of about thirty contemporary Teenek and is comparing the inherited contours of their molars and bicuspids to Tamtoc skeletons and to ancient and modern Maya. He’s checking the DNA of modern Teenek against that of ancient Tamtoc skeletons; strontium isotopes in Tamtoc teeth, absorbed in telltale amounts from drinking water, might reveal where the city’s dead grew up.

“This is a hypothesis we are testing, and we have not found enough information to confirm it, yet,” Córdova says. Martínez and Córdova think it will take ten years to complete their excavations. But just as important to them is making Tamtoc into an instructive oasis in this disrupted landscape. They plan to stock the restored lagoons with fish, reestablish the fruit trees that once thrived here, and demonstrate how ancient Tamtoc sustained itself. This year they will begin construction on a site museum and teaching center where local students will work side by side with archaeologists, study artifact restoration and conservation, and learn about indigenous people.

Multi-dimensionality and the relativity of fundamental units in physics


Although my degree is in geology & geophysics, and not nuclear or astrophysics, I’v always had a keen interest in physics and would love to go back to school one day and get a graduate degree somewhere in that field. My advanced physics, geochronology and geophysics classes in college really interested and excited me. As I went through school I was flooded with ideas and insights and had strong impressions of where modern physical understandings were lacking.

As the internet grows I have found I am far from alone. I have tried on many occasions to write down my ideas, but as I comb the internet for information I am overwhelmed by how many people there are who are thinking about and trying to solve these same issues. Because there are so many others, I am quite sure these issues will work themselves out over time. I think collaborative, academic bodies will eventually move our global understanding where it needs to be in order to fully understand the concepts my theories are working toward. In relation to my very unique theory for scriptural correlation & symbolism and the relativity of radiometric dating, I will go over some of the basic principles of what I think mainstream science will one day mathematically prove.



1. There are many poorly understood cycles in celestial mechanics, some of which affect many of the fundamental units of physics.

(give examples)
-what really is mass? how does it relate to time?
-what dictates nuclear stability and decay rates?

2. One of the most basic of these is the sun’s 11 yr solar cycle of solar maximum. This poorly understood cycle, which is almost certainly caused by a type of electrical resonance between the sun and Jupiter (and Saturn), reverses the sun’s electromagnetic field and causes massive electrical discharges and changes within the sun’s dynamo.

(give examples)
-sun and Jupiter are a binary pair, Jupiter’s period is ~11 years.
-they create a double circle resonance. when closest, their lines intertwine. there’s an energy exchange and they switch polarity.

3. Many of the celestial mechanic principles which govern the orbits of bodies are still sometimes explained using archaic concepts of Newtonian mechanics. Understanding phenomena such as inertia, circular orbits, and mass/gravity in terms of quantum field mechanics helps to better explain the relativity and connectedness of our galaxy.

(give examples)
-the similarity between charge and gravity equations (force related to distance squared).
-The circular orbital behavior of a charged particle in a mag field.
-The standing wave and orbit of the earth.
-diagram of how the earth would create a mag field if it is a charged particle in a large oscillating mag field of the sun.
-channeled sources teach of 8 dimensions, a fractal analog is the 8 energy shells in atoms. this is where energy goes.
-speed of light (core atomic resonance of that frequency) dictates the dimension. it is dictated by the mag field of the next higher governing creation.
-try not to get too speculative.
-throw in the concept of the sun or all matter being a vortex into the next dimension (like a drain sucking in matter & blowing out energy)

4.The galactic core, and many other systems within the universe also produce harmonics and orbital resonances (especially with gravity waves), which create cycles affecting our solar system and all bodies within the universe. The density waves which create our spiral arm geometry is an example. The most pertinent cycle for our solar system is a 600-800 yr & 3000-4200 year cycle which radically affects our sun and solar system.

(give examples)
-we only have mythological historical and channeled accounts to tell us about these theorized cycles.
-It appears to completely disrupt the solar system.
-causes a huge energetic exchange between the sun and its governing power (perhaps the galactic core?).
-The energetic exchanges change the z-number and nuclear stability; which changes most of the relative fundamentals such as mass, density and binding energy.
-Changes occurring during these cycles create changes in volume/density & angular velocity and momentum and are the primary driving force for plate tectonics.

5. Just like suns, every atom is a miniature vortex/whirlpool connecting dimensions. Just as differing densities in the ocean or atmosphere cause vortexes seeking equilibrium (tornadoes/whirlpools), so also are suns and subatomic particles 3D vortices which pull matter from one density/dimension, transform it and blow it into another density/dimension in the form of energy (matter goes in gravitationally and out electromagnetically). Somewhat like a slinky going down the stairs, all matter steps through the dimensions; each sun, planet and atom attracting to itself in one dimension until it dies and is re-created or born again in the next higher dimension. Everything has its analog across the dimensions. As galaxies and humans attract in this life, so we will manifest in the next.

6. The unified field is the master electromagnetic (quantum) field. Particles are simply well behaved ripples or vortices in the quantum field. The Strong, Weak, Gravitational and Magnetic attractive/repulsive forces are all different aspects of the same force–which have to do with alignment or misalignment of the vortices. What needs to be solved is the mechanism which shields some interactions and not others. What shields some elements from being magnetic? What shields the Strong Force in all but nucleic interactions? What shields the “magnetic” forces in celestial mechanics to make interactions behave “gravitationally”?  Etc…  To solve the shielding problem is to unify the forces. My guess is that the math behind this is beyond our current abilities. I believe it has to do with calculating the composite field interactions between every subatomic vortex in the field.



The cycles of celestial mechanics and their relationship to the fundamental units of physics

In our Galaxy there are many cycles which affect our earth and our measurements of space and time. The most fundamental of these cycles is obviously the earth day, which is essentially a measure one complete rotation of earth on its axis. Also well known are the year, the lunar cycle which months are loosely based on, and the less known Solar Cycle of 11 years where the sun reverses polarity. There are even greater cycles of such long duration that their exact mechanical characteristics are only speculative; such as our solar system’s movement within the Orion arm of the galaxy, our movement up and down across the galactic plane or equator, and our solar system’s orbit around the galactic core. I propose that these larger celestial cycles dictate all of our physical laws and measurements in ways many may not realize. It should be obvious that all our measurements of time are based on the velocity of the earth’s rotation and orbit around the sun, as well as the distance and size of the earth itself and its orbit. Einstein and many physicists like him came to realize over a century ago that all these measurements were relative to each-other and were dependent upon one’s reference frame in many complicated ways.

I suggest that there is no way to conclusively prove that the earth’s rotational velocity, orbital velocity or orbital period have been constant; and that in fact historical and mythological records seem to suggest to the contrary. I propose a cosmological model which suggests that our Solar System experiences long periods of relative stability interspersed by short bursts of extreme relativistic changes much like the suns 9-10 years of stable behavior interspersed by 1-2 years of erratic behavior during Solar Max. I suggest that special relativity and gravity waves can be used to suggest that large changes in the angular velocity of our solar system’s orbit in the galaxy, cause minor but significant changes in volume, density and even its mass, binding energy and other energetic properties of physics.

Two dimensional representation of the rate of change of Celestial Cycles. Peaks and troughs represent huge gravity waves emanating out from the Galactic Core, which cause short periods of intense change in spacetime, mass, angular velocity, and angular momentum. Areas of constant slope between peaks and trough represent areas of relative stability.


The Solar Cycle and Orbital Resonance

Our sun’s 11 year solar cycle has been well researched and documented. Roughly every 11 years the sun’s magnetic field collapses, reverses and realigns in a process corresponding with Solar Maximum, where the sun’s energetic output, sunspot activity and coronal mass ejection prevalence intensifies. Older models seeking to explain the cause of these cycles relied on classical physics explanations which saw the sun as a closed dynamo system. Recent work by astrophysicists is getting closer to the big picture by showing the correlation between the Sun, its largest planets and the Galaxy. Although well documented, it is not well known that the Sun and Jupiter are technically a binary system, as the center of gravity of the two bodies lies outside the sun’s circumference. At roughly 1/10th the diameter of the sun, Jupiter is more than twice as massive than all the other planets combined. The slight acceleration of mass created by this binary orbit between the two creates a strong harmonic or type of orbital resonance which I believe creates tiny gravity waves and also affects the electrical resonance of the two bodies and the entire solar system.   (see this article to see exactly how electrical resonance works, imagining that the sun’s sphere acts as a capacitor, and its field as an inductor)

Exaggerated illustration of the binary nature of the Sun and Jupiter. Thier true center of gravity lies just outside the circumference of the Sun. This relationship creates an orbital resonance which in turn interacts with the galactic field

Highly Exaggerated illustration of the binary nature of the Sun and Jupiter’s orbits. Thier true center of gravity lies just outside the circumference of the Sun. This relationship creates an electric resonance which in turn interacts with the galactic field.

As depicted in the exaggerated illustration above, when these two massive bodies reach perihelion (their closest approach), their angular momentum increases slightly — this acceleration of mass induces miniscule gravity waves and a current as their magnetic field lines begin to intertwine causing an energetic exchange to occur. (As a result of gravitational and electromagnetic principles I detail below, I suggest that Solar Max is caused primarily by changes in the Sun’s rotational acceleration and not just by random inner-body tidal forces).  The Solar Jovian exchange energizes and imbalances the sun’s internal dynamo and it drops its protective shield leaving it temporarily exposed to the cosmic influences of the galactic wind. It is not entirely understood why the sun’s electromagnetic field always rebuilds in a switched polarity, but I suspect that either Jupiter’s orbital obliquity to the Solar Plane (which is 6.01 degrees) actually alternately snakes above and below the celestial equator with each orbit, or it is caused by some galactic influence such as our solar system’s position in the galactic field according to principles which will be discussed later in this article.

The Oahspe text contains many supposed ancient illustrations (channeled in 1882) of astronomic regions though which the earth passed in its galactic orbit which preportedly afftected human behavior and consiousness, the pattern in this illustration is surprisingly similar the reinforced wave patters of torroidal energy flow.

Ancient documents speak of the travel of our solar system across a “celestial serpent” or sinusoidal path across the galaxy which crossed through regions of “light and dark”–which in turn affected the spiritual proclivities of mankind (aka celestial “times and seasons”).

The small Gravity Waves caused by the sun’s acceleration and the electrical resonance created by the same process is extremely relevant in our discussion because I believe it serves as a microcosm or fractal of what is occurring in the Galactic Core.  The dance or movement of these two lovers creates an alternating, radiating field disturbance which radiates throughout the Solar System (and Galaxy) and ends up affecting the gravitational and electrical properties of all smaller bodies. It is this same phenomena occurring in our Galactic core which is responsible for the “arms” of our Galaxy, and more importantly, creating alternating regions of “light” (high energy density) and “dark” (low energy density), which regulate the relativistic changes of cosmic variables for our solar system (such as inertia, mass and the speed of light). Much like with the famous double slit experiment, this double wave interference pattern creates linear node alignments which radiate out from the center like sunbursts or spokes on a wheel. When the oscillating source of these interference waves is itself rotating, then the spokes become curved arms matching the ratio phi—just like we see in our galaxy. (see for many amazing insights into the relationships of phi)

As our solar system slowly moves through the pattern of electromagnetic waves and gravity waves emanated out from the galactic core, many fundamentals of physics change. Large gravity waves fold space-time on itself, causing possible time-dilation, and changes in mass and solar energy output.

Double wave interference pattern from two oscillating bodies

Imagine these oscillating balls representing the Sun and Jupiter (or similarly the Galactic Core & Sagittarius A East). Note the double interference pattern (especially the wave canceling “rays” or spokes radiating from the center). Now picture the entire system rotating and you would get the same condition existing in the Galactic core—it being responsible for the spiral arms of our Galaxy. Matter tends to be driven into the “quiet” or wave-cancelling arms.



Celestial Mechanics and a Unified Field Theory

Science seems to be marching on in finding ways to explain the unified field that Einstein envisioned. There are many patterns and concepts concerning a possible unified field which any high school student can see, and in fact most college textbooks actually point out. Modern String theory is starting to validate previously pseudoscience “new age” theories that require multiple dimensions to make things work. Here, we’ll first cover the similarities in equations which govern classical vs. quantum mechanics.  For an over simplified example, take for instance the similarities between law of universal gravitation and Coulomb’s law. 

gravitation vs.

Universal Gravitation vs. Coulomb’s Law

It should be obvious that there seems to be a distinct relationship between mass and charge.  This relationship becomes more clear and insightful when we look closely at mass and compare it to the effects of a charge in different types of magnetic fields. Mass, by definition is simply a measure of the force it takes to break inertia and accelerate an object. But what causes the effects of inertia?  This force is often seen as separate from electromagnetism, but remember the Lorentz force laws show that it takes a force to move charged particles against a magnetic field. To those who have looked closely into magnetic field vectors on a spherical object, the results are amazingly similar to the inertial effects we see on objects in our Solar System. Although strikingly similar on the surface, mathematically proving this idea that inertia is actually caused by the resistance of magnetic fields on relatively “charged” objects has proven elusive (but that doesn’t mean it won’t be done one day).  Before moving into the more complex differences between gravity and magnetism let’s take a moment to look at the similar effects of planetary orbits and the behavior of a charged particle moving normal to a magnetic field.  In introductory physics we learn of the cyclotron and the effects of a charged particle when traveling normal to a uniform magnetic field. As shown in the illustrations below, the particle will be forced into a circular orbit when the velocity is inversely proportional to the charge.  Doesn’t this look amazingly similar to planetary orbits?  Isn’t this a better explanation for why planets tend to stabilize their orbits around the celestial equator and galactic bodies tend to do the same along the galactic equatorial plane?  It likely also plays a role in why planets with weak or no magnetic fields often have very small or no moons.

-Electromagnetic properties only act on oppositely charged objects. Is there any way to test whether the sun and its planets are relatively opposingly charged?

The circular behavior of charged particles in a uniform perpendicular magnetic field, is similar to the behavior of celestial bodies orbiting bodies with strong magnetic fields.

similarities between the circular or ‘cyclotronic” motion of a charged particle moving normal to a uniform magnetic field, and the stable orbit of a planet or satellite orbiting within the uniform magnetic field of its governing celestial body.

Some cosmological phenomena are sometimes still explained using entirely newtonian physics principles, despite their amazing similarities to electromagnetic principles.  There are many physicists trying to break out of this old mechanical cosmological view and trying to see the universe as a dynamic electrical system.  One profound aspect of this is the idea that Celestial bodies may be heated from within by induction caused by motion through the solar or galactic magnetic field, just as a conductor induces a current when it moves through an alternating field. If such were at all true there could be many implications on possible periodicities of volcanism and the speed of tectonic movement (orogenic events) seen in the geologic record. Perhaps as many ancient myths suggest, the movement of our Solar System in and out of high density “nodes” of the Galactic Field could possibly influence planetary heating, plate subduction and Solar output.

Our current difficulty in getting past the prevailing classical astronomical models is reminiscent of the 17th century scientific community led by Lord Kelvin who had trouble accepting the idea of radioactivity playing a role in the Sun’s and earth’s interior heating.

A changing magnetic field through a conducting ring induces a current. Accordingly, the sun’s & galaxy’s changing magnetic field induces a current in the earth, initially controlling its internal dynamo and its seemingly random switches in polarity.

Putting it all together

Putting the principles we have been discussing together I propose a model in which, just as a wound conductor wire acquires an induced current when moved through an oscillating magnetic field, the Sun also is subtely influenced electrically by its motion through the galactic magnetic field. Changes in the Sun’s acceleration, like those caused by Jupiter’s binary perigee every 11 years, cause electrically induced surges which we call solar max.  The same process is repeated up and down the line between Suns, planets and other orbiting satellites which have cores appropriate for forming dynamic magnetic fields. Thus the earth’s core also has a current which is induced by its travel through the sun’s oscillating magnetic field. (However, hardened planets like earth contain largely “frozen” magnetic fields which are no longer able to flow easily with the changes of their “governing” stars.) Energetic changes in earth’s internal dynamo are also caused by accelerations caused by our own satellite (The earth and moon are also a binary system). This process forms a chain which transfers energy and other aspects of electrical resonance from the smallest of celestial bodies, to the galactic core itself. Of course, like most things in nature there are obviously myriads of exceptions and complexities which seem to break the rules of every model. A scientists job is not to lay on the wisdom as if they have “figured nature out”, but to propose theories and hypotheses which explain natural phenomena and invite others to test and challenge those theories in search of truth….


Electromagnetic dynamics within the Solar System and Galaxy.

Oversimplified principles of electromagnetic dynamics within the Solar System and Galaxy.


-If true would the motion of the sun through the galactic magnetic field, or the motion of the planets through the suns magnetic field create a drag? Wouldn’t this tend to slow them down over time?


Atomic Orbital Shells Are Analogs to the Dimensions

I believe the 7 electron energy shells or valence shells appear to be a fractal analog or microcosm to 7 dimensions/densities of our Galaxy (its likely the “number” of dimensions is relative–every string theory model seems to put forward a different number).  There can be a maximum of 7 energy shells just as there are 7 energy densities or dimensions of our Milky Way Galaxy. Just as different atoms have different numbers of energy shells, so do different planets and suns have different numbers of densities. (refs)  For instance, earth has a 1st, 2nd, 3rd and is just now activating a 4rth dimension just as Potassium or Calcium are in the early stages of filling a 4th energy shell.  Saturn is a late 7th dimensional planet much like elements 99-100 have nearly full 7th electron orbitals.

periodic table of the elements showing the electron shells of each element.

periodic table of the elements showing the electron shells of each element.


We like to think of electrons as ‘particles’ orbiting ‘around’ the nucleus, but in reality electron shells are more like an energy field which holds a discrete amount of energy. The number of shells and amount of energy those shells can hold is determined by the “core vibration” or mass of the nucleus.  Likewise the varying dimensions of planets (such as earth’s heavens) or even the 7 energy bodies in hindu belief are often referred to as existing ‘around’ a person or planet, but in reality pinpointing these shells in space is not so straightforward.  In the ‘Law of One’, Saturn’s 7th dimension is referred to as existing in the “rings’ of Saturn, just as Oahspe and most mainstream religions refer to earth’s heavens or resurrections as existing within the earth’s electromagnetic field. This is true in a manner of speaking because space/mass expands as it becomes more energized, but one needs to realize that these places are truly alternate dimensions invisible to human eye and manifesting only as light or energy when translating from one reference frame to another.

-put diagrams of gravity vs electromagnetic interactions.
-lay out relationships between fundamental physical properties (mass, energy, etc)
-lay out a framework for how core vibrations change, and how this change then dictates the fundamental laws.

—- UNDER CONSTRUCTION —————————————————————————————–



Most of the fundamental units of physics are relative to many cosmological factors which change over time. The earth’s volume, density, and most importantly the speed of light, … are relative to the solar system’s position in the galaxy. Assumptions claiming these do not changed are flawed…

We are just beginning to understand the electrical nature of the universe. The relationship between electromagnetism and gravity is in its infancy. Most physics textbooks point out these relationships as examples of what is yet to be discovered… when we find these relationships, we will understand why decay rates change over time.

Small description of the 8 dimensions from cosmology article. As earth moves between these, dates skew.

(give examples)
-the similarity between force and gravity equations (over distance squared).
-The circular orbital behavior of a charged particle in a mag field.
-The standing wave and orbit of the earth.
-diagram of how the earth would create a mag field if it is a charged particle in a large oscillating mag field of the sun.
-the lost energy we call binding energy, is pulled to the next dimension
-(main point) most importantly hit on the possible causes for creation of, and polarity switches in magnetic fields. because switches (which have collapses) or changes in mag field intensity, affect radiation on earth, which affects decay rates.

-gravity and electromagnetic attraction are obviously the same force, but the force is dampened or accentuated by the configuration of the atoms in the material. In materials which conduct electricity, the force gravitational force is greater… that’s why they are heavy. It has to do with how the atoms are arranged…
different theories for what changes the decay rates…
1.standing wave nodes
2.abrupt change in velocity
3.(main point) direct CME impacts and general changes in solar and interstellar radiation reaching the earth. Current physics is still a bit too caught up in particle physics, but we understand radiation enough to realize that interstellar radiation both creates and affects radioactive particles. Creation of C14 by highly charged solar particles is well understood. Creation of other radioactive isotopes like U245 and K37 from cosmic sources is less understood, but the principles are still there.

4 -PLATE TECTONICS. as you move further away from a gravitationally governing body, an object’s volume and density change.  A bag of potato chips of a mountain or a balloon in the air will expand the higher they raise away from the earth. The planets experience the same effect in relation to the sun’s gravitational influences. As a you move away from the Sun, planets become more voluminous and less dense (depending on the rigidity of their materials).  Scientist currently assume that the differences in planetary density were determined as they all simultaneously condensed with our sun (which may certainly be true) and that the earth has not changed its location in the solar system. My theory however suggests that it is changes in interstellar density, which is the main driver of plate tectonics. The liquid core expands & shrinks as we cross major galactic density boundaries, the rigid crust, less so. The same would be true of our sun (and its planets) as we move about in relation to both the galactic core and other galactic gravitational influences (they move slightly closer or further from the sun).

This process is quantized, not simply gradational. It could best be compared to the water cycle. Water does not transform from ice to liquid to steam in a linear fashion, it does so in quantized steps involving latent heat. With water, changes of state are determined by the energy density of the liquid or the density/pressure of the environment. If you slowly move most frozen substances into a region of lower pressure, they will liquify unless you take enough energy out of the system to bring equilibrium. As our Solar System moves through the galaxy, the same type of thing happens as we pass through nebula (and clouds of dark matter) of differing density. Scientist know that the orbit of earth & all the planets in our solar system (as well as the moon) are slowly expanding, but no one can agree on why. What is yet to be seen is the effect of this change on the laws of physics once the quantized threshold boundary is crossed…

5-UNIFIED FIELD THEORY. gravity and magnetism are not separate forces, but different intensities of the same force. as scores of people have suggested, there is only one force, and it is subatomically created by reinforcing or cancelling waves. (Essentially vibrations or vortices in the quantum field.) Waves which are essentially electric field lines caused by space-time vortices in the unified field. Whats important is the idea that attractive and repulsive forces of electromagnetism act on every object. It is well understood that it is the “alignment” of the atoms which dictates magnetism. What is not well understood is that it is those same atomic alignment characteristics which determine mass… which in turn determines what we call gravity.  Magnetic materials are almost universally heavy (more massive). Why? Because the alignment or polarization of the atoms also makes them more attracted to the earth than other materials (in addition to being attracted to other magnetic materials). Iron, water or air do not have different masses because they have more or less atoms, it is because of the alignment or polarization of the atoms. Density is not so much a measure of the molarity (number of atoms) but the proportion of atoms aligned in certain configurations or ways.  The reason solids can pass through liquids or gases is the same reason why dimensions don’t interact, its because of the configuration and/or base vibratory frequency of the atoms.  At the most fundamental level, there is no such thing as a solid or “particle”.  Things simply behave like particles because of their electrical properties


-when the moon had a liquid core and stronger magnetic field, it likely caused the earth’s magnetic field to regularly flip in the same way Jupiter causes the sun to.  Possibly certain galactic variables re-melt the core and polarize it from time to time.  Or like dropping a magnetic can affect its magnetism, jolts to the earth may affects its magnetism as well.

#1 Unified field theory. I believe we one day will come to mathematically and conceptually understand how all fundamental forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, & weak force) are simply different distortions of the same unified force & field. I believe the key to finding these formulas is in understanding the multidimensionality of matter. (7 dimensions in our galaxy, just like there are 7 possible electron valence shells or energy levels in an atom.)

#2 Total relativity. All fundamental units of physics are relative and change as a body progresses through these dimensions. Mass, inertia, bonding energies/strong forces, gravitational forces, electromagnetic forces and time all are relative and change as a reference frame moves through the dimensions. Changes occur proportionally according to the mathematical relationships proven by mainstream physics. My ideas essentially mirror special relativity with exception that the speed of light is discretely different in each of the 7 dimensions.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION ——————————————————————————————————-

Changes In Fundamental Rules of Physics

I’ve come to realize our current understanding of the motion of our Solar System through the galaxy is fairly retarded. We really have only 200-600 years of good astronomical data to use as a basis for tracking our motion.  That’s not very much and not nearly enough to really be able to say much about our galactic orbit. All of our astronomical calculations concerning the suns movements are blind projections of current movements. We know from current measurable motions of stars that our planet wobbles on its axis. We know it also has a slight binary orbit because of the moon.  We know the sun does the same and has a true binary orbit with Jupiter (the center of which exists outside the circumference of the sun). We know our solar system is inclined relative to the galactic plane while moving toward it and we speculate it snakes its way up and down through that plane over time.  Despite presumptuous and prideful speculation, we really don’t have enough data to speculate as to exactly how that orbit behaves over thousands of years.  Vague Greek records (and possibly a few Chinese & Babylonian ones) are our only truly reliable way of extending astronomical conditions a bit longer into the past. The language barrier with Babylonian and Egyptian records makes them hopelessly suspect.  What is causing the earth’s magnetic field strength (and other planets in our solar system) to decay more rapidly than linear predictions suggested? It must have to do with the galactic orbit.

How reliable is projecting current motions millions of years into the past or present? I suggest that although equally as suspect, using material supposedly channeled from other dimensions where longer astronomical records exist is really all we have to work with.  From these, I speculate that as our solar system orbits the galactic core the earth moves through differing energy densities in the galactic wind.  I suspect it is a combination between our location in the galaxy and the angle between our suns trajectory in relation to the prevailing galactic field that dictates the speed of light and atomic energy potential in our solar system.

Variables affecting our planet and their relationships.

earth’s axial tilt = season/surface heat, electromagnetic interaction, harvest productivity
earth’s speed = time of day, length of year,
earth’s distance from sun = seems to be somehow loosely related to density/mass/size of the planet.

Variables affecting our solar system and their relationships.

solar system’s axial tilt = heat/intensity of the sun, electromagnetic interaction, spiritual harvest productivity
solar system’s speed = time in some way?
solar distance from galactic core = doesn’t matter so much, what matters is our relationship to the interference patterns.

The speed of Light dictates the dimension

I put a lot of meditation into this.. I need to find a way to explain it.  basically matter’s core vibration is what dictates a dimension and that is based on the speed of light. The speed of light is different for each dimension.  Each reality or illusion is formed by being able to interact with (see and touch) matter.  Both seeing and touching matter has to do with electromagnetic waves bouncing off things and repulsive interactions between atoms.  “Atoms” are mostly empty space, but the “solidity” of energy patterns that we call atoms or matter is dictated by them both having an equal core vibration.  So atoms or the matter in each dimension, vibrate at the same frequency which is the speed of light.


I reference the Law of One because it is seems to verbalize many of the ideas that I have felt since delving into physics. As a second witness to my thoughts, it gives more validity to the hope that my ideas are not solely my own. It seems to me that there are a lot of people working on these concepts and that a scientific consensus will eventually be achieved which will iron out all the errors and inconsistencies in my own and other pioneering theories.

I believe that the correct model for multi-dimensionality in the universe must take into account the accumulating metaphysical evidence for life after death, and the existence of beings which dwell in dimensions not visible to our own. I believe along with many major religions and supposed material channeled from unseen realms that the earth is approaching a dimension boundary. And as we slowly cross this boundary, the changes we see in the fundamentals of physics will help our understanding of the physics of our galaxy to greatly enlarge.

#1 There is a dualistic dimension or metaphysical realm.
There is a metaphysical realm, dream state, spirit world, purgatory, time/space, mental environment or inner planes which is a duality or opposite in many ways to the physical world. (Separate from the resurrected realms, atmospherea/4rth density, etc. It is essentially the 8th density, next octave or dwelling place of God/ Higher Self. “The conditions are such that time becomes infinite and mass ceases”.) Time as we know it does not exist there. Where in our dimension space is large and curved compared to ourselves (the earth is spherical), there time is large and curved. Here, if you travel around our sphere/globe you will return to the space where you started; there if you travel around that sphere you will return to the time where you started. Here we move through space at will, but cannot control movement through time; there you can travel through time at will, but cannot control movement through space.

#2 There are 7 primary dimensions or densities in our galaxy which religion and metaphysics call the resurrected realms/heavens or glories and are a projection of the metaphysical realm. The reality or illusion of these realms is created by differing discrete values for the speed of light. The seven energy levels or valence shells of an atom are a fractal or microcosm of this greater reality.
Energy vibratory rates are quantized into discrete octaves of existence. In our octave, energy vibratory rates are quantized into 7 discrete steps of the continuum. Much like light being shown through a prism creating the 7 colors of the rainbow, energy originates in an octave above our own and is projected through the metaphysical realm to create the 7 densities or realms of existence. The speed of light is constant for our 3rd dimension or density, but is different in each of the other dimensions.

#3 The same principles Einstein’s relativity theories suggest apply to objects as they approach the speed of light also apply to a “stationary” object’s core vibratory rate. Generally when an object absorbs energy, it eventually burns up or disintegrates. On a molecular scale, the energy causes the atomic bonds to break down, the energy transforms into kinetic energy and the particles become excited releasing light (electromagnetic field energy) and gases which rise in the air to join other particles of like energy and density.
We suggest the strong force or bonding energy is created by a harmonic standing wave which emanates from the protons of the nucleus. This standing wave is the “core vibration” of the atom (see

Questioner: Were these constructed in time/space or space/time?
Ra: I am Ra. We ask your persistent patience, for our answer must be complex.

A construct of thought was formed in time/space. This portion of time/space is that which approaches the speed of light. In time/space, at this approach, the conditions are such that time becomes infinite and mass ceases so that one which is able to skim the, boundary strength of this time/space is able to become placed where it will.

When we were where we wished to be we then clothed the construct of light with that which would appear as the crystal bell. This was formed through the boundary into space/time. Thus there were two constructs, the time/space or immaterial construct, and the space/time or materialized construct.
Ra: I am Ra. Although this query is difficult to answer adequately due to the limitations of your space/time sound vibration complexes, we shall respond to the best of our ability.

The hallmark of time/space is the inequity between time and space. In your space/time the spatial orientation of material causes a tangible framework for illusion. In time/space the inequity is upon the shoulders of that property known to you as time. This property renders entities and experiences intangible in a relative sense. In your framework each particle or core vibration moves at a velocity which approaches what you call the speed of light from the direction of superluminal [faster than the speed of light] velocities.

Thus the time/space or metaphysical experience is that which is very finely tuned and, although an analog of space/time, lacking in its tangible characteristics. In these metaphysical planes there is a great deal of what you call time which is used to review and re-review the biases and learn/teachings of a prior, as you would call it, space/time incarnation.

The extreme fluidity of these regions makes it possible for much to be penetrated which must needs be absorbed before the process of healing of an entity may be accomplished. Each entity is located in a somewhat immobile state much as you are located in space/time in a somewhat immobile state in time. In this immobile space the entity has been placed by the form-maker and higher self so that it may be in the proper configuration for learn/teaching that which it has received in the space/time incarnation.

Depending upon this time/space locus there will be certain helpers which assist in this healing process. The process involves seeing in full the experience, seeing it against the backdrop of the mind/body/spirit complex total experience, forgiving the self for all missteps as regards the missed guideposts during the incarnation and, finally, the careful assessment of the next necessities for learning. This is done entirely by the higher self until an entity has become conscious in space/time of the process and means of spiritual evolution at which time the entity will consciously take part in all decisions.



The Electric Sun Hypothesis (DONALD E. SCOTT)

Plasma Kosmology (Electric stars theory in relation to Oahspe)
Understanding the solar dynamo
Electric Field on Earth
Power Density of Solar Radiation
Of Particular Significance
The Strengths of the Known Forces