Book of Mormon Places (Gazetteer)


Ammonihah, Land of 

-It was 3 days travel on the north of the land/city of Melek (which was west of Sidon by 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, 49:12-14).
-It was near the city of Aaron (Alma 8:13).
-The 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).

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! If Jershon is by the east sea, why are they fleeing somewhere by the WEST wilderness?


Melek, Land of

-West? of Zarahemla (Alma 8:3).
-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).
-It was 3 days journey to (the south of) the city of Ammonihah (Alma 8:6).

discussion: 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. Alma 8:3 must not be talking about the west wilderness, but the east or north wilderness.  (Alma 27:22 makes it clear Jershon is “on the east by the sea”.)   It could be accross the river from Gideon (which is on the east of Sidon), or it could be farther west like Chalcatzingo (cut why would the Ammonites flee there?). How do you get a configuration that is west of the river Sidon, but close to the east sea and Jershon?


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).   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”.
-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 (on the west sea) is mentioned in conjunction with these cities (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).
-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.  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.


-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 (Alma 2:15–20).
-It was located between the city of Zarahemla and the city of Minon (Alma 2:24).

discussion: If Zarahemla is Cuicuilco in the valley of Mexico, Cholula is a fantastic match for Gideon with La Malinche matching the Hill Riplah.


Jershon, Land of

It was south of the land of Bountiful, by the east seashore and bordering on the south wilderness (Alma 27:22).
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 probably encompassed the eastern coastal cities of Mulek, Gid, Omner, Morianton, Lehi, Nephihah, and Moroni.


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

-Helam is 8 days journey into the wilderness from the city of Nephi (Mos. 23:3).
-Helam is 12 (or 13) days journey from the city of Zarahemla (Mos. 24:23-25).
-Helam was in an area suitable for agriculture (Mos. 23:4-5).
-The Valley of Alma was one days journey (probably northward) from Helam (Mos. 24:20).
-Amulon was suitable for agriculture, but apparently not as good as Helam as they did not return to it (Mos. Ch. 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 (Mos. 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”.

-hill Amnihu is on east of Sidon: 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 going traveling from Zarahemla to Gideon (Alma 6:7).  The city and valley of Gideon are on the east side of the river.
-One 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)
-It was west of the hill Amnihu. (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. (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. (Alma 43:22)

-Likely down in a canyon or deep valley in places (ref?)  and had banks big enough to battle on (ref)


Sidon, Head of (Head of Sidon. 5 uses) – could be either headwaters or mouth of the river

-Perhaps “running from the east toward the west”. Alma 22:27
-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.
-Exists as an obstacle between Jershon and Manti, when going “round about in the wilderness”. Alma 43:22
-“From the west sea, running by the head of Sidon” Alma 50:8,11  See discussion.
-Between Lamanite armies and the city of Nephihah (on the east sea). Alma 56:25

Commentary: Seems likely that “the head of sidon” is a geographical term paralleling the modern term of “headwaters of X 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 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 50:11, almost seems to suggest the head of sidon is near the west sea. 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.”


Manti (land 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 a mountain or 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 (58:23-28).


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 (Mos 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 (2Ne.5:11; Mosiah 21:16).
-It was “Many days journey” west of the Land of First Inheritance (with families apparently on foot) (2Ne.5:7).
-Nephi built a temple there (2Ne.2:16).
-The city of Nephi had a wall (Mosiah 22:6).
-Abundant mineral deposits (2 Ne.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 (Mosiah22:12).


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)


Zarahemla, 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 (3Ne 6:25). 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 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 Zarahemla or any city. In fact it 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. (Alma22:27)
-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; 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).



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 (Mor 1:3)
-Moroni “carried by his father into the land southward, even to the land of Zarahemla”. 1:7
-War begins “in the borders of Zarahemla, by the waters of Sidon”. (first battle) 1:10
-A number of battles fought, then a truce for four to seven years.
-Lamanites attack again, Nephites retreat “toward the north counties” 1:3
-Moroni’s army take and fortify Angola “with their might”, but “notwithstanding their fortifications”, the city is taken.1:4
-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) 1:5
-They gather to Joshua which is “west by the seashore”. 1:6-8 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”. 1:4
-Nephites driven “northward to the land which was called Shem”. 1:20 Nephites fortify the city and are attacked in 346AD, but win a battle with 30k to 50k. 1:25
-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.” 1:29
-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.” 1:8
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”. 1:2
-”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. 1:8
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 1:16
-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” 1:22
-Mormon goes to the hill Shim and takes up ALL the records.
Boaz is still relatively close to all the preceding cities (Antum, Jashon, Desolation)
-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.” 1:4
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;”


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 proposed by Rod Meldrum which places the entirety of Book of Mormon narrative in the Eastern United States of America. It really arose as a counter-balance to the problems inherent in the “limited Mesoamerican model”.  (following is taken from a list compiled by Gregory Smith)

–  With the Eastern US heartland model, Nephi’s journey from eastern Arabia to America doesn’t really make sense.
–  Hagoth cannot, as is claimed, navigate from the Great Lakes to the ocean.
–  The Mississippi River makes a poor match with the River Sidon for several reasons.
–  The Sidon should empty into the “seas,” which are the Great Lakes in the Heartland Model.  The Mississippi flows into the Gulf of Mexico, far away from these “seas.”
–  The confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers as the “head” of the river Sidon does not work, because this confluence is not in an area identified by the Book of Mormon as a “narrow strip of wilderness.”
–  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.

see also this list.

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 mearly 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 ussually 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 Zerahemla) 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 Teotihucahn 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…

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

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


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 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.


Outline of Concepts (click to expand)


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.

In my research, I extend these ideas even further to show that arguing over scriptural dates and timelines is useless, as is assuming that radiometric dates which project our current reference frame millions and even billions of years into the past is also relativistically problematic.  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 —————————————————————————————–


Things to Add to Article....


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



Bible & Book of Mormon Chronology / Kings of Israel

Biblical Timeline from Abraham to Hoshea, through the Kings of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. See Bible Chronology / Timeline from Adam to Zedekiah for more complete biblical timeline through kings of Judah and much more detail.  check out our genealogical correlation chart for a genealogy of all of these timeline together.

Gen. Descendant of Adam Notes about Life Life Span Begat son at age… Age Made King Total Reign Beg Reign   (Yr BC) DEATH (Yr BC) Scripture reference’s) which give exact ages/dates.
20 Abraham 175 100 75 ? 2022 BC? 1847 BC? Gen 21:5   25:7,8
21 Isaac 180 60 60 ? 1922 BC 1742 BC Gen 25:7   36:28
22 Jacob 147 68 79 ? 1862 BC 1715 BC Gen 47:28   9?
23 Judah 1794 BC 1657 BC
24 Pherez 1730 BC? 1730 BC?
25 Esrom 1660 BC? 1660 BC?
26 Aram Contemporary to Moses and Caleb 1597 BC 1477 BC
(The Exodus) See Note A.   Occurred when Moses was 80 years old.  In 1517 BC,  430 years after Abraham was 75 or 215 years passed from the time that Jacob entered Israel to the exodus. Acts 7:23, 30Gal 3:17Gen 15:13, 16
Aminadab contemporary to Joshua? N/A #REF! #REF!
Naason N/A #REF! #REF!
Salmon Comtemp to Ehud? N/A #REF! #REF!
Boaz Comtemp to Gideon N/A #REF! #REF!
Obed Ruth’s husband,   time of Jair N/A #REF! #REF!
Jesse Father of David,  contemp with Samuel N/A #REF! #REF!
David Born 1032 BC 70 33 40 1062 BC 1022 BC 2 Sam 5:4–5,  1 Chron. 29:27,  3:4
34 Solomon Temple lain in 1018 BC? ? 40 1022 BC 982 BC 2 Chron. 9:30,  1 Kings 11:42

Foundation of Temple is Lain: See Note C. Solomon lays temple foundation in 4rth year of his reign (Put period of the Judges Scriptures)

35 Jeroboam #### ? #VALUE! 940 BC   1 Kings 
Nadab KINGS OF NORTHERN KINGDOM 2 940 BC 938 BC 2 Chron. ,  1 Kings 15:25
Baasha 24 938 BC 914 BC 2 Chron. ,  1 Kings 15:33
Elah 2 2 2 914 BC 912 BC 2 Chron. ,  1 Kings 16:8
Omri 12 12 12 912 BC 900 BC 2 Chron. ,  1 Kings 16:23
Ahab 22 21 22 900 BC 878 BC 2 Chron.   1 Kings 16:29
38 Ahaziah N/A 2 878 BC 876 BC 2 Chron. ,   1 Kings 22:51 
Jeroham 12 12 12 876 BC 864 BC 2 Chron. ,  2 Kings 3:1
Jehu 28 28 28 864 BC 836 BC 2 Chron. ,  2 Kings 10:36
41 Jehoahaz 17 17 17 836 BC 819 BC 2 Chron. ,  2 Kings 13:1
41 Jeoash 16 16 16 819 BC 803 BC 2 Chron. ,   2 Kings 13:10
42 Jeroboam 41 41 803 BC 762 BC 2 Chron. ,  2 Kings 14:23
43 Menahem 10 10 10 762 BC 752 BC 2 Chron. ,  2 Kings 15:17
43 Pekahiah Murdered x 2 2 2 752 BC 750 BC 2 Chron. ,  2 Kings 15:23
44 Pehah Murdered x 20 12 20 750 BC 730 BC 2 Chron.  2 Kings 15:27
45 Hoshea 9 -16 9 730 BC 721 BC 2 Chron.  2 Kings 17:1
Assyria sacks Israel in 12th year of Ahaz’ riegn or 730 BC
46 Hezekiah Sun goes back 15 degrees 54 42 25 29 728 BC 699 BC 2 Chron. 29:1,  2 Kings 18:2
47 Manasseh 67 45 12 55 699 BC 644 BC 2 Chron. 33:1,  2 Kings 21:1
48 Amon  (x) Murdered 24 16 22 2 644 BC 642 BC 2 Chron. 33:21  2 Kings 21:19 
49 Josiah 39 14 8 31 642 BC 611 BC 2 Chron. 34:1  2 Kings 22:1
50 Jehoiakim (a.ka. Eliakim)   vassal to pharaoh 36 15 25 11 611 BC 600 BC 2 Chron. 36:5,  2 Kings 23:36
Zedekiah (a.k.a. Mattaniah)    Johoiakim’s cousin 32 32 21 11 600 BC 589 BC 2 Chron 36:11.  2 Kings 24:18

Lehi and family leave Jerusalem in the 1st year of Zedekiah’s riegn, 600 yrs before Christ.

Descendant of Adam Notes about Life Life Span Begat son at age… Age Made King Total Reign BIRTH    (Yr BC) DEATH (Yr BC) Scripture reference’s) 
Lehi Born about time of Amon?  (670 BC?) N/A 572 BC? 2 Nephi 4:122 Nephi 5:28
50 Nephi Left Jerusalem in 1st yr of Zedek.  ___ yrs old 72? ? 615 BC 543 BC Jacob 1:12, Jacob 1:1
Jacob Probably about 25 yrs younger than Nephi 94? 74? N/A N/A 599 BC 505 BC 2 Nephi 2:1
51 Enos Son of Jacob 105 N/A N/A 420 BC Enos 1:25
52 Jarom Son of Enos N/A N/A 359 BC? Jarom 1:5, 13
53 Omni Son of Jarom N/A N/A 317 BC? Omni 1:3, 5
54 Chemish Son of Omni.  (Brother of Amaron) N/A N/A 246 BC? Omni 1:9
55 Abinadom Son of Chemish N/A N/A 200 BC? Omni 1:10–11
56 Amaleki Son of Abinadom  (Contemp, with Mosiah I) N/A N/A 159 BC Omni 1:12, 23
57 Benjamin Contemporary of Amalaki.  (gives him plates) 194 BC 122 BC Mosiah 6:4–5
58 Mosiah II Son of Benjamin 63 30 33 92 BC Mosiah 29:46
59 Alma II Son of Alma (contemp with Mosiah’s sons) N/A 73 BC Alma 45:18–20
60 Heleman I Son of Alma II 57 BC Alma 62:52
61 Helaman II Son of Heleman I 50BC 11 39 BC Hel 2:1–2,  3:37
62 Nephi II Son of Heleman II    (disappears) N/A ? 1 AD Hel 3:373 Ne. 1:1–2, 2:9
63 Nephi III Son of Nephi II  (Prophet at Christ’s coming) N/A? N/A N/A N/A ? likely one of the immortal 3 nephites
64 Nephi IV Son of Nephi III (the deciple)  kept the records 85? 70? N/A N/A 20 AD? 110 AD 4 Ne 1:19–20 (4 Ne. title page)
65 Amos Son of Nephi IV 114? 100? N/A 84 90 AD? 194 AD 4 Ne. 1:21
66 Amos II Son of Amos I.  Age of Mormon’s dad 131? 110? N/A N/A 174 AD? 305 AD 4 Ne. 1:47
Ammaron Brother of Amos II.   Age of Mormon’s dad?  N/A N/A 325 AD?
67 Mormon Gets plates from brother of Amos II  (son’s age) 90 ?? N/A N/A 311 AD 401 AD Mormon 1:1–6, 8:3, 6
68 Moroni Son of Mormon 421 AD Moroni 10:1

– 4 ne. 1:14 says all Christ’s deciples died by 72 AD. (thats 38 yrs after Christ’s coming) guessing that they were between 20 & 60 this means that their life spans were between 58 & 98.  (so not too old)

– 4 ne 1:18 says that by 110 AD, all the first generation who were alive at Christ’s coming had died.  Mormon is likely the one writing this as an abridgment.  And so any statements as to the length of a “generation” are his.  Judging from verse 22 where Mormon once again says the second generation had all passed away by 200 AD; the lifespan of BOM people was between 70-100 from the time of Christ to Mormon’s day.

– However, note that Amos dies in 194 AD.  His his father Nephi IV died in 110 AD.  Thus, since Nephi had to give birth to his son before he died (and likely quite a few years) then Amos had to be born before 110 AD (but was probably born in at least 90 AD).  If this is true, then Amos would have been between 84 and as much as 114 years old when he died. 

– The same applies to Amos II.  He died in 305 AD, and yet his father died in 194 AD.  Thats 111 years between thier deaths!!!  And since Amos II was probably not born on his father’s death bed (but instead was likely born 20-40 years before) that means that Amos II would have been between 131 and 151 when he died!!

– Ammaron comes and talks to Mormon “about” the same time he hid up the records which we are told was in 321 AD (4 ne 1:48).  Mormon tells us he was 10 years old at this time (Morm 1:1).  This means that Mormon was born in 311 AD.  Moroni tells us that Mormon died around 401 AD (Mormon 8:3, 6). This means that Mormon was 90 years old when he was still leading the Nephite forces!!!  I think it is safe to say that something very crazy is going on with the average life expectancy during this epoch!

Book of Mormon Chronology / Timeline of Jaredites

Timeline Chronology for the Jaredite culture from the Book of Ether in the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon Jaredite King List gives only 7 exact dates (lifespans and reigns) for the Jaredite Chronology. The only real markers we have to build a working chronology from are firstly, the date of the “dearth” and megafauna extinction given in the narrative of Heth Ether 9:25. (It is well established that Mastodons and other megafauna went extinct in North America at about 8,000 BC.)  And Secondly, the last Jaredite date which can be placed somewhere between ~570 BC when the Old World Migrants arrived and ~180 BC when the move to Zarahemla took place. As with most “King Lists” found in the old world, the list suggests a direct father to son succession, even though large breaks in time are almost positively present. Comparison with Egyptian, Sumerian and Babylonian King Lists in the Old World suggests this practice of mistakenly inferring direct succession was common, as later rulers wished to prove political legitimacy based on genealogy. All dates and ages are complete conjecture and are based upon the notes and the handful of exact dates (only about 7 given dates) marked in underlined bold. Jared is said to have lived during the time of the Bible’s Tower of Babel which a literal Biblical timeline puts very close to the time of Abraham. However, Babylonian and Akkadian records suggest that this event was a common aspect of mythical records as early as 4000 BC. I suggest the true date to whatever event actually spawned this myth occured sometime around C14 date of 14,000 BC. The last Jaredite historian, Coriantumr lived sometime just before the time of King Mosiah in the Book of Mormon.  See the genealogical table correlation chart to see agreement between this timeline and other biblical internal genealogies. Guessed life Spans and other dates on this chart (dates not in underlined bold) are made to approximately match the ages and dates of corresponding figures in the bible timeline.

Desendant of Jared timeline-notes about life Life Span Age at sons birth Reign Saw sons reign  Age made king Possible Year? Scripture References for kings life…..
1 Jared 240? 180? 100? 14,000 BC Ether 1-6 – Ether 6:29
2 Orihah^ lived exceedingly many days 230? 150? 110? 70? Ether 6:27  –  Ether 7:3
3 Kib* born in fathers old age, captive pait of life 210? 90? 90? 30? Ether 7:3, –  Ether 7:10
4 Shule* bom in fathers old age. captive a short time  205? 90? 90? 30? Ether 7:3  –   Ether 8:1
5 Omer*^ born in fathers old age, left kingdom many years, saw exceedingly many days 175? 122? 120? 30? Ether 8:1 –  Ether 9:15
War kills Majority  (Large time gap in king list?)
6 Emer* bom In fathers old age 150? 58? 62 2 26? Ether 9:14Ether 9:22
7 Corianturn^ had no children until he was exceedingly old, had children in his old age, lived to 142 142 116? 110? 4 28? Ether 9:21 –  Ether 9:25
8 Com* born when his father was exceedingly old (over 102) , killed by own son 125? 45? 49 26? Ether 9:25 –  Ether 9:27
Great Dearth
9 Heth died In drought 70? 30? 40? 30?  8000 BC Ether 9:25 –  Ether 10: 1
10 Shez^ lived to an exceedingly old age 120? 82? 80? 40? Ether 10:1Ether 10:4
11 Riplakish after 42 years of reign, people revolt and kill him 80? 30? 42 38? Ether 10:4 –  Ether 10:8
12 Morianton^ as outcast, he retakes kingdom, lived to an exceedingly great age 120? 95? 70? 8 42? Ether 10:9 –  Ether 10:13
13 Kim* born in father’s exedingly great age; after short reign lives the rest of life in captivity 90? 80? 65? 25? Ether 10:13Ether 10:14
14 Levi* born in father’s old age, after 42 years captive he retakes kingdom, lived to a good old age 100? 50? 90? 10? Ether 10:14 –  Ether 10:16
15 Corom^ saw many days 120? 70? 70? 50? Ether 10:16 –   Ether 10:17
16 Kish 80? 45? 30? 50? Ether 10:17 –  Ether 10:18
17 Lib^ pinnacle of Jaredite prosperity, lived many years. 105? 70? 70? 35? Ether 10:18Ether 10:29
18 Hearthom after 4 years of reign, lives rest of life in captivity 70? 40? 35? 35? Ether 10:29 –  Ether 10:31
19 Heth captive whole life 60? 30? 30? 30? Ether 10:31Ether 10:31
20 Aaron captive whole life 60? 30? 30? 30? Ether 10:31 –  Ether 10:31
21 Amniqaddah captive whole life 60? 30? 30? 30? Ether 10:31  – Ether 10:31
22 Corianturn captive whole life 60? 25? 30? 30? Ether 10:31 –  Ether 10:31
23 Com drew away half of kingdom 42 years, then battled many years and took whole kingdom, lived to a good old age 85? 65? 65? 35? Ether 10:31 –  Ether 11:4
Great Destructions (large time gap in king list?)
24 Shiblon exceedingly great war and many destructions, many kIlled in war 55? 25? 20? 35?  540 BC Ether 11:4Ether 11:9
25 Seth captive whole life 60? 35? 30? 30? 520 BC Ether 11:9 –  Ether 11:9
26 Ahah retakes the kingdom, lived few days 40? 20? 15? 25?  490 BC Ether 11:10 –  Ether 11: 10
27 Ethem 75? 40? 55? 20?  475 BC Ether 11:11  – Ether 11:14
28 Moron lost half the kingdom for a time, then retook all,  then lost whole kingdom and dwelt in captivity rest of life 70? 40? 35? 35?  420 BC Ether 11:14 –  Ether 11:18
29 Coriantor captive whole life 60? 20? 30? 30?  385 BC Ether 11:18 –  Ether 11:23
30 Ether the prophet 75? 35? 40?  355 BC Ether 11:23 –  Ether 15:34
Complete Destruction
End year that Coriantumr would have been found by people of Zarahemla 320 BC?  Complete conjecture

* = born in fathers old age
^ = lived an exceedingly long time
Bold = exact date given in scripture

the reason behind the date for Coriantumr is that when the people of Lemhi sent a group out to find Zerahemla, and yet they overshot and found a land “covered with bones” and brought back the 24 plates.  Well unburried bones desentigrate in a hundred years or so unless its very arid.  Thus they must have found the land within a hundred years of when the battles occured (Mosiah 21:25–28).  

We know it happened a while before King Mosiah I, since the Mulekites brought the stone with the record of Coriantumr staying with them at that time..and spoke of it like it was a while back (Omni 1:20–22).    This was some time before 130 BC.

King Limhi’s group went north about 121 B.C.

So perhaps around 130-250 BC.  Or perhaps not. Placing absolute dates on the Jaredite chronology is largely conjecture.

correlation of all genealogical tables given in biblical/LDS scripture

correlation of all genealogical tables given in biblical/LDS scripture

Animals in the Book of Mormon


Many Book of Mormon critics try to show issues or anachronisms with the lists of animals found in its narrative; for example the wikipedia articles on Book of Mormon Archaeology and Book of Mormon Anachronisms. The Book of Mormon certainly has its issues.. but reading these attacks always seems strangely biased to me. In fact articles like this have so many blatant falsities that they’re a bit difficult for a well-read person to stomach. Debunked statements on their being no evidence of the domestication of certain animals, or no evidence of the ancient use of metal plates, or no evidence of certain animals in the new world are peppered throughout many similar critical articles. I have huge problems with many of Mormonism’s exclusivist truth claims; and the Book of Mormon has a lot of other problems to overcome; however, regardless of whether you believe the Book of Mormon narrative or not you have to consider the fact that the mention its assorted animals is not a deal breaker for it being a truly channeled translation of an ancient history. Especially when one considers the possibility of a very “loose translation” (dynamic equivalence instead of formal equivalence) in the channeling process of the book.

Throughout this article, keep in mind that our model places the Nephites primarily in the Mexican Highland, the Lamanites in the Yucatan and the Jaredites primarily in North America— the early Jaredite record being an abridged oral & channeled history spanning from the Ice age to the Nephite era.


The Book of Mormon makes clear that both Jaredites and Nephites who lived in ancient times on this continent had domestic animals of various kinds. They also speak of wild varieties of presently domesticated animals. The earlier people, the Jaredites (unknown beginning to ~300 B.C.), are reported to have had,

all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which were useful for the food of man. And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cumoms. (Ether 9:18–19)

The Nephites (c. 600 B.C. – 400 A.D.) on the other hand tell us,

that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. (1 Nephi 18:25; cf. Mosiah 5:14; Enos 1:12; Alma 5:59; Alma 17)


Note that Elephants are in the list for animals useful for the early Jaredites. Evidence for the extinction of all North American Elephants (Mammoth & Mastodon) by carbon dates of 7,000 BC is overwhelmingly conclusive. This requires that the early Jaredite record was older than most people (including possibly the Book of Mormon authors themselves) believed. Unless carbon dates are somehow wrong, it seems likely that the Jaredite record (much like the Biblical & Babylonian records) may have presented a somewhat condensed version of cultural histories leading back to the ancient Babel tower myth. The mention of elephants and other extinct animals, along with the obvious fact that the Book of Mormon tells us the Jaredites were the first inhabitants of this continent is the most striking evidence for our correlated timeline which correlates the early pre-dearth Jaredites with North American paleo Indians living prior to the end of the ice age. (The “dearth” in Ether 9:30 being a massive episode of climate change ending the last ice age cycle) Because of the mention of elephants, correlating the paleoindian with the archaic cultures of North America is THE ONLY plausible correlation. (see this article which covers date discrepancies). This is certainly plausible since the record itself does not give any concrete dates for the Jaredite culture (only a genealogy table). There are literally thousands of archeological sites showing that the clovis and paleoindians lived on diets rich in megafauna.  Many archaeologists have in fact suggested that these native american groups may have been responsible for hunting many of these animals to extinction. This highly debated theory gives a lot of weight to the idea given in the book of Ether where it states,

30 And it came to pass that there began to be a great dearth upon the land, and the inhabitants began to be destroyed exceedingly fast because of the dearth, for there was no rain upon the face of the earth.
31 …And it came to pass that their flocks began to flee… towards the land southward, which was called by the Nephites Zarahemla…
34 And it came to pass that the people did follow the course of the beasts, and did devour the carcasses of them which fell by the way, until they had devoured them all.


size comparison of mammoth, mastodon and african elephants

Cureloms and Cumoms

Many other extinct Pleistocene megafauna fit the description of Jaredite animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Paleo Indians were known to interact with and eat animals such as giant sloths; short-faced bears; several species of tapirs; saber-toothed cats like Smilodon; dire wolves; saiga; camelids such as two species of now extinct llamas and Camelops. Since it is generally accepted that “cureloms and cumoms” were especially “useful” to man (Ether 9:18–19), and unknown to Mormon in translation (not necessarily Joseph Smith), I think the most likely candidates are the giant sloth, wooly rhino and camelids.

A few of the many North American megafauna which co-existed with the paleoindians. (nearly all of which went extinct at the end of the ice age (which we correlate with the "great dearth" spoken of in the Book of Mormon).

A few of the many North American megafauna which co-existed with the paleoindians. (nearly all of which went extinct at the end of the ice age (which we correlate with the “great dearth” spoken of in the Book of Mormon).

Cattle, Oxen, and Cows

Concerning the Jaredite “cattle, of oxen, and cows” mentioned in Ether 9:18, likely matches would have to be American Bison (subfamily Bovinae/bovine), shrub ox (family Bovidae: went extinct with other megafauna); Harlan’s muskox (family: bovidae, subfamily: caprinae), Moose (family Cervidae, could have been classified as either cow or horse by Mormon/Ether depending on their cultural classification system) and for Mesoamerica and 1 Nephi 18:25, Baird’s Tapir which is locally known as the “Mountain Cow”. Each of these species ranged far south of their current habitat during the last Ice Age. There is of course no evidence for moose or shrub ox in Mexico, so the only option for the Nephite list is Bison as an Ox, which historical accounts put as far south as Zacatecas (Lst et. al 2007); and Tapir, perhaps as a swine or cow type animal. (It’s certainly nothing like a horse! LOL)

cattle, oxen and cows

cattle, oxen and cows

Large tapir.

A large Baird’s Tapir. Also known to the indigenous as the “Mountain Cow”.



Possibilities include North American Mountain Goats. (Our current scientific classification system does not include this animal in the Capra genus with most goats, but Joseph or Mormon could have very well have been referring to this type of animal).

The North American Mountain Goat.

The North American Mountain Goat.

The Nephite animal list differentiates between “goats and wild goats”. Although modern botanists classify North American antelope into a different family than goats (Antiloocapridae vs. Bovidae), you can see how similar the the two animals look. Antelope were known to be a major food staple of assorted Mesoamerican groups like the early Zapotecs ranging as far south as Oaxaca. This may very well be the wild and non-wild goat that the Nephites were referring to.

North American pronghorn antelope compared to both European and Middle Eastern varieties of goats.

North American pronghorn antelope (left) compared to both European and Middle Eastern varieties of goats (middle and right).



Many species of wild sheep are indigenous to north america. Including Rocky Mountain big horn, Dall Ram, Desert big horn. See wild sheep of north america for details. Note that sheep are not mentioned in the Nephite animal lists, only the Jaredite. This is fitting since, unlike antelope (goats) and bison (cows), no North American sheep are known to have ranged very far south into Mexico.

A few of North America's native sheep species include the Peninsular Ram, the Dall's sheep the Peninsular Ram and the Rocky Mountain Ram

A few of North America’s native sheep species include (shown from left to right above) the Peninsular Ram, the Dall’s sheep the Peninsular Ram and the Rocky Mountain Ram.


Note this is not mentioned in the Nephite list of animals, only the Jaredite list.. Perhaps because many of the larger ranging North American peccaries (Including the long nosed and flat-headed peccaries) went extinct with other megafauna. Pigs (family Suidae) are not native to the Americas, however peccaries, which are native to the Americas (family Tayassuidae) have roamed limited parts of the continent since the demise of their relatives at the end of the ice age. Tapirs are also somewhat reminiscent of pigs. They are prevalent in central america and grow to be six and a half feet in length and can weigh more than six hundred pounds. Many zoologists and anthropologists have compared the tapir’s features to those of a cross between a pig and a cow.

Extinct North American peccary, living meso-american jungle peccary and north american dessert javelina

Extinct North American peccary (shown left), living North American dessert javelina (center), and Mesoamerican jungle peccary (right).


Ass & the Horse

Domestication of caribou, bison, reindeer, and even elk are not uncommon.

Domestication of caribou, bison, reindeer, and even elk are not uncommon.

Horses aren’t specifically mentioned in the Book of Mormon as being the type of animal that carried people. In fact in the instances that they are mentioned in relation to “chariots”, the wording could easily be referring to some type of supply slay (3 Nephi 3:22; Alma 18:9–12).  So its actually pretty plausible that the Book of Mormon translators used the biblical/European word “horse” to refer to a different type of native animal.  Just as Reindeer are the “horse” of Norse peoples, it seems fairly possible that the purported Book of Mormon channelers translated words for White-tale and Mule Deer (or even Elk, North American caribou or moose for those living farther north) in instances it was used. Both elk and deer have been readily domesticated in modern times. Elk farming in North America has become increasingly popular in recent years and Siberian natives have been domesticating elk and deer for thousands of years. Europeans also have occasionally domesticated deer for hundreds of years. Deer in most national parks and many urban settings as well as Elk in National Parks such as the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone have become so docile as to cause problems by their constant dependence and interaction with people. There are even numerous historic images of old cowboys riding elk. It seems logical that if many Nordic cultures could get a caribou to pull a sleigh then it is certainly plausible that some talented ‘deer whisperers’ could train a strong mule deer to pull a ceremonial supply ‘chariot’ as mentioned in Alma 18:9–12. I also find it interesting that settlers named the deer species O. hemionus “Mule Deer” because the animals large ears reminded them so much of a Mule or Ass. Deer are incredibly common in Mexico and even provided a main source of food for cultures as far south as the Yucatan Peninsula and Guatemala.

The idea that Book of Mormon references to “horses” refereed to tapirs, is far too much of a stretch in my opinion. I’m not sure why anyone would suggest such a thing when there are such better alternatives.


comparisons of African wild ass, European ass and North American mule deer.

Comparisons of African wild ass (left), European ass (center) and North American mule deer (right).


Comparison of modern horse and North American cow Elk.

Comparison of modern horse and North American Elk (shown at right).

Flocks & Herds

The Book of Mormon makes frequent mention of “flocks and herds”. In addition to the animals mentioned above it is relevant to note that archeological evidence shows that many Mesoamerican peoples bred, raised and subsisted on animals such as dog, turkey, rabbit and deer. Archaeological evidence indicates dogs and deer were a substantial part of the Mayan diet. In fact, at the Colha site, white-tailed deer accounted for up to fifty percent of the Maya meat source. Likewise, Zapotec cultures relied heavily on domesticated dog and turkey. It makes sense that, many of the references to “flocks and herds” may be referring primarily to these animals. Early Zapotec peoples are also known to have subsisted on antelope— of which similar species have been readily domesticated in various areas of Asia and Africa.  Peccary and tapir are also well known indigenous animals which could have been primary components of Book of Mormon “flocks and herds”. Although evidence for animal domestication in Mesoamerica is hard to come by, this may well be because it is often difficult, if not impossible, to tell the difference between a wild animal and a domesticated animal from archaeological food remains. Below is an example from Nara deer park in Japan, of how easy it is to domesticate wild animals… you simply need to give them a reliable food source.

Although it is certainly possible that the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith or one of his contemporaries, instead of being channeled from heaven or translated from an ancient record–the supposed animal “anachronisms” are not a very solid argument against its authenticity.

Domesticating Deer. Nora Deer Park, Japan

Video of man Riding Buffalo

Video of man attempt at Riding Elk

Video of man attempted Moose Ride

Video of domesticating Antelope

A little detail behind why the only animals that Native American’s had much success Domesticating were, turkey, dog, and possibly deer & bison on a more limited basis.