Gospel Doctrine

The following comes from The Interpreter Foundation. 

Some of the most important geographic information about the Book of Mormon lands is found in Alma 22:27-34. Mormon had been speaking of the mission of the sons of Mosiah when he inserted the largest block of geographic information we have in the entire Book of Mormon. At the end of the inserted text, Mormon confirms that it was an insertion by using repetitive resumption to return to his theme. The return is: “And now I, after having said this, return again to the account of Ammon and Aaron, Omner and Himni, and their brethren” (Alma 22:35).

Mormon never explains why he believed it important to enter this information. However, the context comes from the mission of the sons of Mosiah to the Lamanites, and the geographic descriptions begin by noting that the Lamanite king sent out a proclamation. The first purpose is therefore a definition of Lamanite territories. However, Mormon doesn’t stop there and provides additional information about the Nephite lands extending to the Land Desolation.

While there are other important features in that block of text, my comparison will only deal with Alma 22:27:

And it came to pass that the king sent a proclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all his land, who were in all the regions round about, which was bordering even to the sea, on the east and on the west, and which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west—and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided. (Alma 22:27)

How Does Mormon Use the Term Wilderness?

I am limiting the discussion of the use of wilderness to texts Mormon used for two reasons. The first is the most important, which is that we may expect that the same person will use the same term in similar ways. A different author might have a different definition or application of the term. The second is simply pragmatic. Focusing on Mormon’s usage decreases the number of examples that are relevant.

The sons of Mosiah left the Land of Zarahemla and went up to the Land of Nephi to preach to the Lamanites. Mormon says: “And now, they knew not the course they should travel in the wilderness to go up to the land of Lehi-Nephi; therefore they wandered many days in the wilderness, even forty days did they wander” (Mosiah 7:4). There is no definition of what the wilderness was, but it was expansive enough that the party could lose their way—they wandered.

King Limhi sent a search party to find Zarahemla. That party also gets lost in the wilderness:

And the king said unto him: Being grieved for the afflictions of my people, I caused that forty and three of my people should take a journey into the wilderness, that thereby they might find the land of Zarahemla, that we might appeal unto our brethren to deliver us out of bondage. And they were lost in the wilderness for the space of many days, yet they were diligent, and found not the land of Zarahemla but returned to this land, having traveled in a land among many waters. (Mosiah 8:7-8).

Alma₁ and his people flee the land of Helam:

And it came to pass that Alma and the people of the Lord were apprised of the coming of the king’s army; therefore they took their tents and their families and departed into the wilderness. And they were in number about four hundred and fifty souls. (Mosiah 18:34–35).

This is the movement of a large number of people.

In the book of Alma, the Lamanites attack through a wilderness:

For behold, the armies of the Lamanites had come in upon the wilderness side, into the borders of the land, even into the city of Ammonihah, and began to slay the people and destroy the city. And now it came to pass, before the Nephites could raise a sufficient army to drive them out of the land, they had destroyed the people who were in the city of Ammonihah, and also some around the borders of Noah, and taken others captive into the wilderness” (Alma 16:2–3).

In a military action, Mormon writes: “And it came to pass that Zoram and his sons crossed over the river Sidon, with their armies, and marched away beyond the borders of Manti into the south wilderness, which was on the east side of the river Sidon” (Alma 16:7). Whatever a wilderness was, there was one “beyond the borders of Manti,” which was “on the east side of the river Sidon.”

These are only a few of the references to a wilderness. It is plausible that a wilderness was undeveloped territory. It also appears to create borders, as it does between the Lamanites and the Nephites, but also was on the borders of the land near Ammonihah (which is north of several other Nephite cities).

Sorenson’s Narrow Strip of Wilderness

Sorenson writes: “The narrow strip of wilderness on Mormon’s map correlates with the band of peaks at the head of the Grijalva River basin along the present Guatemala-Chiapas border (including the volcano Tacaná, Central America’s tallest peak). The headwaters of the Grijalva, like the Sidon, originate in this band of mountains.”^[1] This is how Sorenson’s narrow strip fits into his Mesoamerican map. First, note the label “narrow strip of wilderness” on the map. It runs north to south. Sorenson doesn’t explain this, but I suspect that he used that mountainous region that defined the eastern side of the Grijalva (Sidon) river valley in order to have a narrow strip of wilderness that ran from his sea east to his sea west. In the box I have noted the area that I suspect was the narrow strip of wilderness based on the land of Nephi rather than assuming that it referred to later Book of Mormon geography. Both Sorenson’s narrow strip and the one that I prefer does pass by the head of the river Sidon (Grijalva) fitting Sorenson’s verbal description cited above.

The descriptions of a wilderness from Mormon’s writings are consistent with the locations of mountainous and unimproved land areas that would form a natural barrier. There is such a stretch from the sea east (in this case, east of modern Belize), and the west sea (the Pacific). The wilderness region does pass through Manti and the headwaters of the Sidon. All of the textual requirements fit.

Neville’s Narrow Strip of Wilderness

Neville provides his definition and rationale:

I proposed that the narrow strip of wilderness is a major river—or system of rivers—that serves as an effective border. Here is my rationale.

First, Moroni tells us it is a border. The “narrow strip” element suggests a feature that is visible and obvious to people on the ground; i.e., narrow enough that observers can see how wide it is, and long and thin enough that it is not mistakable. It is a definite border, not a vague region.

Second, the definition of the terms offer similar connotations.
Narrow suggests a vale, valley, or river bed. Strip suggests something that is long and thin—like a river.

Third, wilderness indicates the feature is uninhabited. A river cannot be inhabited.^[2]

His map demonstrates how he sees the narrow strip of wilderness:

Although Neville created definitions that would accommodate his interpretation, they do not fit well with the Book of Mormon text. Neville sees the lower Mississippi as the sea west, and now it doubles as a wilderness. Both seas and wilderness regions are seen as barriers, but a sea would appear to be a sufficiently understandable barrier that it would not need to be also deemed a wilderness.

Nevertheless, the requirement of fitting the text onto a geography (rather than the geography to the text) requires that the concept of wilderness be defined as rivers. The text indicates that the narrow strip would run to the sea west. There is nothing in the text that suggests that it extends further. As can easily be seen, Neville’s narrow strip does not stop at his sea west. It is also interesting that his Zarahemla lies to the east of his sea west, which the text of the Book of Mormon sees as the end of both Nephite and Lamanite lands.

Neville is correct that rivers create natural borders, but since the Book of Mormon only mentions the Sidon, his suggestion that the wilderness must be a river must posit riverine borders that are unattested in the Book of Mormon.

Neville’s suggestion that the wilderness must have been rivers makes it very difficult to understand how the sons of Mosiah and Limhi’s people could wander in a river and get lost. It also requires that the use of wilderness in Alma 22:23 must be a different kind of wilderness:

Now, the more idle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in tents; and they were spread through the wilderness on the west, in the land of Nephi; yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of their fathers’ first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore. (Alma 22:28)

Remember that one of Neville’s main points was: “Third, wilderness indicates the feature is uninhabited. A river cannot be inhabited.” Neville’s definition of wilderness as uninhabited is directly contradicted by Alma 22:28.

Comparing a Mesoamerican and Heartland Narrow Strip of Wilderness

Sorenson’s narrow strip fits all textual requirements and easily provides the reason that people could wander in a wilderness and become lost. Neville’s narrow strip depends on creative readings of the text that must invent rivers and then redefine wilderness so that those unattested rivers become the Book of Mormon wildernesses. Moreover, the upper Mississippi is the Sidon River, which is never described as a wilderness. The lower Mississippi isn’t a wilderness; it is the sea west (even though it is southeast of Zarahemla). The fact that Alma 22:28 has people living in the wilderness rather contradicts the idea that the wilderness could be a river. Parsimony again gives the advantage to the Mesoamerican model.

Sources

Visit The Interpreter Foundation here.