George Potter makes the case that Lehi landed in modern-day Chile in South America. We'll discuss his reasons for making the case, and anachronisms. Check out our conversation...

https://youtu.be/1E6V7l8Ovx0

Don't miss our other conversations with George: https://gospeltangents.com/people/george-potter

Copyright © 2023

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission
Charting Nephi’s Ocean Journey
GT  00:25   Okay, so you're going with what Joseph Smith taught. You're going with the 30 degrees south latitude. Is that Chile or is that Peru?

George  00:32   That's Chile.

GT  00:33   Chile?

George  00:33   Well, it's just part of ancient Peru.

GT  00:35   Okay.

George  00:36   I mean, I was with a person last night who works with Richard Hawk down in Khor Kofut, and he was down mountain climbing in Argentina and found Inca ruins as far down as, almost down to Patagonia in Argentina. So, ancient Peru took in a vast area. It was as large as the Roman Empire, all the way from Colombia down to Chile.

GT  01:00   Okay.

George  01:01   So, it's all Peru. But until the Smiths’ time, that was now a nation called Chile. It's indicated, it's purported that he taught that they landed 30 degrees south in Chile, that was supported by many of the apostles, the people who knew him at the time. That's what they taught. They didn't teach the Heartland model. They didn't teach the Mesoamerican model. That's what the early church leaders taught. That Joseph Smith had indicated.

GT  01:33   The early church leaders believe that South America was the land southward and North America was the land northward. It was more of a hemispheric model, right?

George  01:42   I don't know that.

GT  01:44   But that's the way I understand it.

George  01:46   Okay, I have not...

GT  01:47   Panama's the narrow neck of land.

George  01:49   Yeah, I don't know that that is what they taught.

GT  01:53   Let me ask you another question. Are you familiar with a book by Venice Priddis? The Book and the Map, I think it's called? [It's a ] blue book.

George  02:01   Unfortunately.

GT  02:02   You're unfortunately familiar with it?

George  02:04   Well, let’s put it this way. It's a pretty naive notion that South America just rose out of the ocean 2000 years ago, it's been there for millions of years.

GT  02:15   Okay, because it does look like, for those who aren't familiar with it. Basically, the Amazon River was an ocean, basically. And so it's nice because you've got a narrow neck of land. It makes it more of a land northward/land southward. Um, it's great. The problem is, like you said, that may have been true 2 million years ago, it wasn't true 2000 years ago.

George  02:40   Like 50 million years ago, maybe?

GT  02:41   Yeah.

George  02:42   Okay, let's just kind of get...

GT  02:45   So, you don't think South America was flooded?

George  02:47   For these, well, they call them internal models of the Book of Mormon. Now, it has to be a narrow neck of land, there has to be this or that, and that. That, to me is absolute nonsense. Because all those things are based on assumptions that people are making about the language in the Book of Mormon.

GT  03:06   Okay.

George  03:07   They went down to Zarahemla.  What does that mean? They went up to the city of Nephi. Are they going up in altitude? Are they simply going north or south? You don't know. Because in Hebrew, the semitic languages, like in English, up means north. It could also mean they're going up in altitude, and they travel for a period of time. "Oh, it had to be exactly 19 days?" How do you know that? It's all based on people's assumptions as to if it fits. There are so few geographical clues in the Book of Mormon, you cannot make a map out of it. Or you could turn around, you could make up, using assumptions, 30 different maps and I've seen at least 30 maps of people,