Part 1 ⎜ Part 2 ⎜ Part 3 ⎜ Part 4 ⎜ Part 5 ⎜ Part 6 ⎜ Part 7 ⎜
⎜ Part 8 ⎜ Part 9 ⎜ Part 10 ⎜ Part 11 ⎜ Part 12 ⎜ Part 13
Sorenson’s Map and Non-Cardinal Directions
A very common assumption modern readers bring to the Book of Mormon is that most of the English words in the text mean precisely what we assume they do. Royal Skousen and others have examined the words in our English text and found that there are many which represent a more archaic meaning than the one we would typically ascribe to them. These are only a few of those Skousen discusses, but they are representative of the issue of assumed meaning:
But ‘unless’
“I greatly fear lest my case shall be awful but I confess unto God” (Jacob 7:19)
Call ‘need’
“thus we see the great call of the diligence of men to labor in the vineyards of the Lord” (Alma 28:14)
Consigned ‘assigned’
“I am consigned that these are my days” (Helaman 7:9)
Course ‘direction’
“in the course of the land of Nephi, we saw a numerous host of the Lamanites” (Alma 2:24)
Cross ‘to contradict’
“that thereby they might make him cross his words” (Alma 10:16)
Depart ‘to divide’
“the waters of the Red Sea . . . departed hither and thither” (Helaman 8:11)
Depressed ‘rendered weaker’
“and they were depressed in body as well as in spirit” (Alma 56:16)[1]
The concept that there are words in the text that might have a different meaning than what we expect becomes important when the seemingly obvious words for directions appear in the text. We know what north, south, east, and west mean. Obviously.
There is no aspect of Sorenson’s map that has come under greater scrutiny than his use of directions. Where the internal models discussed in the first post in this series (Heartland vs Mesoamerican—Foundational Issues) show a very north/south orientation, Sorenson’s model appears to lay that model on its side. This places his sea east to the north!
Sorenson’s explanation begins with the fact that concepts of directions are culturally dependent.
The Israelites of Palestine, in their most common mental framework, derived directions as though standing with backs to the sea, facing the desert. Yam (“sea”) then meant west,” for the Mediterranean lay in that direction, while qedem (“fore”) stood for “east.” Then yamin (“right hand”) meant “south,” while shemol(“left hand”) denoted “north.”[2]
I have reexamined the issue of directions in the Mesoamerican model. Rather than basing the meaning on Hebrew, I use concepts of directions from Mesoamerica. Mesoamerican directional systems have some linguistic diversity, but the majority are based upon the path of the sun, with some variation of the phrase “from the east to the west” appearing multiple times in the text. In Mesoamerican systems, east and west were defined by the sun, and north and south would be “on the left” or “on the right.” Different languages might flip the meanings based on whether they assume that directions came from facing the sun or having one’s back to the sun. Because the sun’s rising changes along the horizon through the year, the Mesoamerican concept of north was not the vertical line we assume, but rather a pie wedge where what is north sweeps an area because the beginning of the sun’s path changes throughout the year.
Combined with the understanding that directions are relevant to the focal point from which they are given, what is north and south are slightly different in the Book of Mormon when the directions are given from the city of Nephi or later from the city of Bountiful. Thus, I modeled that directional concept on Sorenson’s map and that way, it yields a more explicable understanding of how the Mesoamerican orientation fits into the directional explanations.
Of course, the argument for understanding directions in this way is much more extensive than the summary offered here. I refer readers to the published article for the full details.[3]
In the concept depicted above, it is easy to see a sea west of the land of Nephi. It is perhaps less so when seen from Bountiful. However, this issue of a continuous sea that is both west and south may help explain an interesting verse in Alma: “And now it came to pass that the armies of the Lamanites, on the west sea, south. . .” (Alma 53:8). If tradition beginning in the land of Nephi used “west sea” as a name as much as a directional description, then there is a reason to see the Lamanites on the West Sea, south.
Neville’s Heartland Map and the East and West Seas
Neville’s map uses cardinal directions and therefore neither he nor other Heartland modelers need to nuance our expectations of what directional terms mean. Nevertheless, the geography that he proposes requires some explanation of what a sea is, and therefore what a sea east and a sea west might mean.
Neville does not argue a specific east sea, apparently accepting the Atlantic Ocean. He never discusses how the distance from the Heartland to this east sea may be accounted for. As I noted in the post on “Up, Down and Distance,” there is a serious problem with how far away his east sea is from the Zarahemla heartland.
Where Neville has a real problem is with the west sea. The Atlantic is far away, but he apparently understands that the Pacific is simply too far away to be seen as the west sea. Neville suggests “it is possible that were multiple seas; i.e., the “sea west” could refer to one body of water in one passage and a different body of water in another passage.”[4] This is similar to his suggestion that the River Sidon is sometimes the Mississippi and sometimes the Tennessee River.[5]
While this is possible in theory, the issue is whether the text supports the idea or whether the hypothesis is simply necessary to make the text fit into the selected real-world geography. This underscores the problem of beginning with a fixed pin in mind. Neville’s pins commit him to a geography and therefore he must fit the text to the geography rather than the geography to the text. Neville does not attempt to show how the text uses the west sea differently. He simply asserts that it could be and therefore is.
Neville’s solution depends upon one of the meanings associated with the Hebrew word, yam, typically referencing, seas. He indicates that it could mean a “mighty river.” That meaning allows him to suggest that the Mississippi could be seen as the west sea.[6] The argument that the Book of Mormon peoples continued to use Hebrew has been asserted by multiple defenders of multiple geographies, including the various Mesoamerican models. Although I have personal disagreements with the use of Hebrew as a default language for the Book of Mormon, it is widely enough used that Neville’s suggestion cannot be dismissed outright.
The next problem Neville’s west sea imposes is that he has the Mississippi as the Sidon River as well as the west sea. His solution is to suggest that the Mississippi becomes the west sea only farther south after tributaries have swollen the size of the river.[7] Interestingly, he admits “that doesn’t solve all the issues with seas in the Book of Mormon. It doesn’t even solve all of Alma 22.”[8] Solving Alma 22 requires Neville to posit a difference between the west sea and the sea West. This is where the idea of more than one sea can come in, where the west sea is only the lower Mississippi and the sea west is another body of water, which he suggests is Lake Michigan.[9] As with the Sidon River that becomes the west sea, the idea that there are multiple west seas (or a real distinction between a sea west and a west sea, which he never demonstrates from the text) is a requirement of the desired geography dictating the interpretation. As I noted concerning river travel, the need to adapt the text to fit the desired geography required Neville to invent unnamed and unreferenced rivers, and now to posit multiple west seas (also without textual support), one of which is the Mississippi River which all modern maps rather clearly understand as the same river even though it is fed from multiple tributaries.
Comparison of the Mesoamerican and Heartland Seas
Neither the Mesoamerican nor the Heartland models survive a simplistic reading of east and west. For the Sorenson model, I believe the orientation of the model is explained by using the directional system that was native to the cultures that lived in the model’s geography. For Neville, there is no need to alter the concepts of directions, but he must alter the definitions of bodies of water. In order to fit the text, he must redefine river as sea, but only when it is south of Zarahemla. Then he must create a second west sea after the Nephites have moved north. He asserts, without analysis, that west sea and sea west are fundamentally different rather than different ways of representing the same concept.
While both models have their issues, the Mesoamerican model can be explained with a culturally appropriate understanding. The Heartland model requires having the Sidon become a sea south of Zarahemla (which is nowhere attested in the text), and then have Lake Michigan become the west sea later in the text. Neville never addresses the problem of the distance from the Heartland to the east sea, which is the Atlantic. The Mesoamerican model requires resetting expectations, but the result is a culturally appropriate definition. The Heartland model requires inventing multiple seas as well as a distinction in the upper and lower Mississippi. Parsimony sides with the Mesoamerican model.
The Nephites had the Brass lates with them to keep them anchored in the Israelite concepts. Their concept of East did not change with the seasons. Even the people of King Noah had copies of the Brass Plates (Mosiah 12). As we all know, the Nephites had a sound concept of the square, and its meaning of exactness. It wasn’t 16.5 degrees off.
The Book of Mormon was translated into English for our understanding, not for our confusion. What the Nephite words were for the cardinal directions is irrelevant. When we didn’t have a word corresponding to the Nephite word the translator inserted the Nephite word.
Sorenson was trying to put a large, square peg into a small round hole.
Why do you and others miss that I don’t agree with Sorenson’s skewing of directions? I have no intention of defending those. I think there is a better explanation.
As for what a word means–obviously we can disagree on that.
The Israelites arranged their camps around the tabernacle, on the east side, south side, west side and north side (Numbers 2:3-31)
The Nephites would have done the same when they pitched their tents around the temple in Zarahemla to hear King Benjamin (Mosiah 2:5). The temple would be facing east, towards the rising sun, and each side on a cardinal direction The Nephites did not lose their concept of cardinal directions.
When Christ appeared to his temple in Bountiful, undoubtedly it was facing east, towards the rising sun.
All speculation, of course, but reasonable speculation. However, you still assume that your modern perception of cardinal directions can be imposed upon the ancient world. If you will read the article I wrote on the topic, and linked to in the blog, the directions that follow the path of the sun actually fit quite well in the language of the Book of Mormon.
The doors of Israelite tramples always faced east, into the rising sun. The supposition that the Nephites changed that practice because they changed their concept of east is absurd. The sun still rises in the east, even inn Mesoamerica. The Lamanites may very well have changed their concept.
It would help if you would read the argument. I don’t say that anyone changed where east was. East was always where the sun rises. However, that location changes over the year. The reality is that if you use the sun to determine east, it will change with the seasons. It can be cardinal east, but only temporarily. This is the ancient way of determining directions. The idea of a fixed north from which other fixed directions are derived is later.
Also, why would you assume that the Nephites continued to have a daily language from the Old World? Sorenson guestimated that there may have been 30 people aboard Lehi’s ship. They split into two groups. The only way we get the rapid populations in Nephi’s lifetime is through merger with peoples already there, and as the larger body, their language would dominate.
Decades ago, when Dr Richard DeLong (RLDS) and I lived in the same town in Southern California, we both attended a Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop conducted by Nick Hopkins & Kathie Josserand. They covered the same very alien Maya notions which Brant recommends in its 2011 published form. However, it was updated and revised last year (2024), https://www.academia.edu/113486307/Directions_and_Partitions_in_Maya_World_View_revised_2024_ . Discussion is worthless without understanding those alien concepts.
At the same time, the late Mike Coe of Yale discovered that the Olmecs of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan used a magnetite compass, so they certainly knew their compass directions.
In addition, the Maya could observe Polaris (Maya Xëmën ek’ “North Star”), or the Southern Cross (Maya Yaxché – Krus k’anal “Cross stars”) to get their bearings.
With sea on all four sides (Helaman 3:8; cf. Alma 22:32, 50:34), as in the Aztec conception of Anahuatl, the disk of Earth is entirely surrounded by water, just as the 6th century BC Babylonian map of the world has the salt-water ocean (id-mar-ra-tum) surrounding the Earth-disk.
Finally, for Upper Egypt the Bible uses the Egyptian term Pathros literally “The Land Southward” (Isaiah 11:11 = 2 Nephi 21:11), which is familiar from common Book of Mormon usage (Alma 22:32, Ether 9:31-32), although Joseph Smith could have known nothing about such a correlation.
Directions and Seas
To fit the entire book of Mormon into Mesoamerica, Sorenson speculates that the Nephites, after crossing Arabia with the cardinal direction s we now use, rotated them so that the seas north and south of Mesoamerica became the Sea East and the Sea West.
Yes. You noted that, and I also noted that in the blog. I think it is the most obvious issue with Sorenson’s model, as he explained it. You miss the part of Sorenson’s explanation where he described where the Hebrew words came from, which was the physical orientation to the seas. He suggested that linguistic model was adapted to the new geography. I disagree with his analysis. I don’t think the rotated idea works at all.
Thank you again for a wonderful article.
It is interesting to me that the Polynesian people (among whom I served as a missionary) also use a quadrant based sense of direction. I think this provides additional support for your ideas.
I think your model for directions works for Sorenson’s model. It is different and strange, but so are many different cultural beliefs. Mesoamericans invented the concept of zero, something Europeans adopted centuries later, which explains why our calendar goes from 1BC to 1AD, no Ze.ro year.
That Neville’s model has the East sea so far away, shows it internally struggles with distances, as does the Hemispheric model. There clearly is no West sea in his model that can withstand any basic and reasonable scrutiny.
I wish more. Saints would look at these articles, so they can see the strengths and weaknesses of each model.
Undoubtedly, you will visit written language, population sizes, weaponry, amongst other issues in the coming w weeks. I look forward to it.
Population and militarism yes. There are so many things that could be discussed that I left some out. I thought about written language, but that is really interesting. We know it was in Mesoamerica (I believe there is evidence of 7 scripts), but none that are clearly Nephite/reformed Egyptian. That means that it is a close correspondence, but not a really good one. I also didn’t want to argue about Micmac, which was a pictorial glyphic system, but wasn’t a language script until a French priest expanded the pictorial system into something that could represent language.
Macri indicates there are fifteen examples of distinct writing systems have been identified in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, many from a single inscription. Macri, Martha J. (1996). “Maya and Other Mesoamerican Scripts,” in The World’s Writing Systems. England: Oxford. pp. 172–182.
There are, apparently, several heartland geo models. So not sure that the Atlantic is necessarily the East Sea.
Multiple researchers have demonstrated that the Nephites had their cardinal directions exactly on today’s understanding, when they crossed Arabia.
Yes, and that was before they met those who were already in the New World. The population size differences tell us (based on history) that the Nephite daily language would have shifted to the New World language (though we know that Hebrew was kept as at least a scholarly language). That means that the words, and concepts, for things like directions should have merged with the New World concepts rather than trailing Old World words whose conceptual origins were based on a very different geography.
Two more speculative, required assumptions in Sorenson’s theory, with no basis in the text.
1. The Nephites changed their concept of directions.
2. There were significant others when they arrived.
As you may have noticed in my blog post, I started with Sorenson’s controversial concept of directions. I think there is a better answer that fits the text and the posited culture. As for significant others, it can be seen in the text if you read between the lines, but I agree that it isn’t explicit. Nevertheless, given what we know of the population of the New World, no matter where we place the Book of Mormon, there were already people there. The only places that didn’t have much of a population were the places where still very few live.
“Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves.” (2 Ne 1:9,).
Many Nephites remained faithful until the days of Mormon.
Others is contrary to the text.
This is one of the reasons that I intentionally declined to deal with interpretations of scripture. Verses can be read according to the interpretation brought to them. For example, you read this one as suggesting that there is no one but the Nephites. I read it as possessing a much narrower land–and that Lamanite incursions are demonstrations of other nations. Of course, we must also remember that Jacob tells us that anyone who is an enemy to a Nephite is a Lamanite, so the Lamanite label easily encompasses all “others” who were here. Nephite faithfulness simply kept them from being dominated by those other nations.
The Mulekites are priesthood evidence that others existed in the Americas.
With a limited geography, God could send several groups to the Americas at different times and places, such as Mulekites and Jaredites. I believe others from Israel, etc May have arrived at various times, including South America.
According to the Book of Mormon’s own criteria, 2 Nephi 1:9 cannot be describing an uninhabited hemisphere before Lehi arrived, as the text elsewhere identifies at least two other non-Lehite groups in the land—the Jaredites and the Mulekites. This fact, along with archaeological evidence from ancient America and reasonable inferences drawn from other passages in the Book of Mormon, suggests that whatever 2 Nephi 1:9 means, it is not what you assume.
The Nephites say quite a bit about the Jaredites, but not a word about anyone else. If others were there and interacted with the Nephites, surely, they would be mentioned.
The Nephites spoke of the others all the time. They just called all of them Lamanites: “14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.” (Jacob 1:14)
Think Jew and goyim.
The Nephites met and merged with the Mulekites, who were a much larger group and had royal descendants, yet the Nephites retained the kingship and religious leadership overall. In order to wedge the entire Book o Mormon into Mesoamerica, Sorenson’s theory requires an unmentioned group to have enough influence over the Nephites that they changed their concept of cardinal directions. That is untenable speculation.
Calling something an “untenable speculation” is an interesting turn of phrase. Since “untenable” means “unacceptable,” your phrase also means that you find some speculations acceptable and some not acceptable.
Most people find a speculation unacceptable if it doesn’t comport with with their current understanding–the speculation challenges their understanding and, therefore, is untenable. You may not be “most people,” however. Where do YOU draw the line? What makes some speculations acceptable or unacceptable to you? Then, further, why should your definition of acceptable vs. unacceptable be accepted when compared to the definition used by someone else?
untenable
adjective
1.
(especially of a position or view) not able to be maintained or defended against attack or objection:
“this argument is clearly untenable”
Actually, the cardinal directions while in the Arabian peninsula actually provide some evidence that the directional system was not the same after arrival in the New World. 1 Nephi 16:13 states the travel was in “nearly a south-southeast direction”. That is somewhat indicative of a cardinal type directional bearing. However in the New World, this pattern has changed, there are no directions given as southeast, southwest, northwest, or northeast. Instead, ones sees northwards and southwards and in one example in Alma 2:36, one sees “fled towards the wilderness which was west and north.”
“And it came to pass that as my father arose in the morning, and went forth to the tent door, to his great astonishment he beheld upon the ground a round ball of curious workmanship; and it was of fine brass. And within the ball were two spindles; and the one pointed the way whither we should go into the wilderness.” 1 N 16:10
Lehi’s family wouldn’t know which way to go with only one spindle in a ball. The other spindle is needed as a reference and would be pointing due north, the Liahona also being called a Compass. Thus Nephi knew he was directed to go “nearly a south-southeast direction” due to the two spindles.
Nephi obviously thought anyone with a brain would understand that, thus didn’t waste space on the plates to explain simple direction finding.
The two spindles would also being important for Nephi when his ship was out of sight of land and during cloudy days and nights. In other words, he didn’t need a sextant.
Mesoamerican culture had observatories. El Caracol, for example.
Later American civilizations after 420 A.D. such as the Anasazi and what some called the Hohokam, that built the Casa Grande ruins in Arizona and their counterpart in Mexico called Casa Grandes in Chihuahua, Mexico, built their structures with the walls perfectly aligned with the cardinal points of the compass.
To claim peoples in The Book of Mormon didn’t know their cardinal directions is inappropriate and dwells on the fantastic. Especially when you insist they dwelt among the Maya who had observatories.
I don’t know anyone who thinks that the Maya, or any native peoples, didn’t know their directions. They labeled them differently and considered them differently, but that is far different from saying they didn’t know. In fact, the Maya could easily center their directions so that a square could have a north face, east face, etc. We actually do much the same, we just don’t really think of it that way. We drive a car with a compass and can be traveling on a road that we “know” is north, but is actually northwest. If you have no word for northwest, then you are still going “north.”
Why would you believe the Maya didn’t have a word for “northwest?” It’s merely a compound word.
Nephi had a word or phrase for traveling, “nearly a south-southeast direction.”
Didn’t the Maya use multiple words to describe a concept? They’re normally called sentences. People can talk in sentences.
Thus your map with West is North, East is South is based on a spurious assumption that the Maya were unable to label concepts to fit the map with directions given in The Book of Mormon.
Why do these ancient people have to be some kind of low-IQ to fit a geography theory for the keystone of our religion?
First it was Joseph Smith who didn’t know the location of Cumorah.
Know it’s everyone in the Maya population who couldn’t understand simple directions.
It’s an argument that doesn’t support your geography theory.
Q: Why would you believe the Maya didn’t have a word for “northwest?” It’s merely a compound word.
A: The Maya languages don’t work that way. In fact, Yucatec has the same word for east and west, because east is defined by whether or not you are facing the sun. North and south are “on the left” or “on the right”, depending upon whether the language assumes you are facing the sun or have your back to it. Of course, I assume that they could make known a specific direction, but they would do it by descriptions, not a word such as you are suggesting. That, by the way, is why I believe what I said. I have actually studied it rather than assumed it.
Q:Thus your map with West is North, East is South is based on a spurious assumption that the Maya were unable to label concepts to fit the map with directions given in The Book of Mormon.
A: Incorrect. I assume you read the title to the blog post and not the actual post. I recommend it. You would understand things better if you would read it.
Q: Why do these ancient people have to be some kind of low-IQ to fit a geography theory for the keystone of our religion?
A: I’m sorry, but you are the one putting words and concepts into their “mouths” that they did not believe and did not use. I suggest that they were well aware of their world and were very intelligent. We aren’t trying to make them fit our theories, we are attempting to ground our theories in what the ancients actually believed rather than just imposing our modern assumptions on them.
Q: First it was Joseph Smith who didn’t know the location of Cumorah.
Know it’s everyone in the Maya population who couldn’t understand simple directions.
A: Wrong on both counts. As for Joseph not knowing where the Book of Mormon Cumorah was/is–that is actually a fact from the available historical evidence. Argue with the historians and the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve who have vetted their work in both Saints and in the Gospel Topics essays. If you have a problem with me, you have a really big problem of not sustaining our leading authorities.
As for the Maya not understanding directions, again, you are extremely wrong. My evidence is based on their language usage–not on English. Which you might know if you would actually read the blog post (and supporting article).
One of the things that many who try to figure out the directional system of the Book of Mormon err is that they don’t think in 4 dimensions, the 4th being time. Many directional words are actually fossilized, especially as it comes to those attached as part of a place name. For example, reference to an “east sea” may have been it’s location based on the early culture of the Jaredites, because it was actually east for them early on (Gulf of Mexico). That then became it’s name, the same as the “west sea” (Pacific). Later generations will still call it that, no matter where it was located in relation to them. For example in Utah the salt flats and environs are referred to as the “west desert”. However, people in Wendover also call it the “west desert” even though it is actually east of them.
In addition, even in our modern system of Township and Ranges for land surveys there are different points of origin from which directions are determined. For example in Utah one point is the Salt Lake Meridian (SLM), which has it’s zero axis point in Salt Lake, and then one counts directions west and east and north and south from that point. However the Uinta Basin does not use the Salt Lake Meridian, but uses the Uintah Special Meridian (USM) which has a different zero axis point. So actually if you are located in a West township in the USM you are actually east on the SLM. Even in our modern world we have directional systems that would not make sense unless we understood the underlying development of the directional system. The Book of Mormon has multiple cultures and thousands of years of history. One would actually expect a non-uniform directional system if one believes it to be an ancient text.
Q: Why would you believe the Maya didn’t have a word for “northwest?” It’s merely a compound word.
A: The Maya languages don’t work that way. In fact, Yucatec has the same word for east and west, because east is defined by whether or not you are facing the sun. North and south are “on the left” or “on the right”, depending upon whether the language assumes you are facing the sun or have your back to it. Of course, I assume that they could make known a specific direction, but they would do it by descriptions, not a word such as you are suggesting. That, by the way, is why I believe what I said. I have actually studied it rather than assumed it.
QQ: Thus your appeal to authority it to yourself and to your knowledge of the Yucatec language. That’s not very convincing. I thought the language was Reformed Egyptian a dead language unknown to anyone as stated in the text. How and why did Yucatec appear in this conversation? Because you’re already decided Mesoamerica fits the geography while trying to prove it fits?
Q:Thus your map with West is North, East is South is based on a spurious assumption that the Maya were unable to label concepts to fit the map with directions given in The Book of Mormon.
A: Incorrect. I assume you read the title to the blog post and not the actual post. I recommend it. You would understand things better if you would read it.
QQ: Why would you assume I hadn’t read it? Because anyone who reads your words would believe as you?
Q: Why do these ancient people have to be some kind of low-IQ to fit a geography theory for the keystone of our religion?
A: I’m sorry, but you are the one putting words and concepts into their “mouths” that they did not believe and did not use. I suggest that they were well aware of their world and were very intelligent. We aren’t trying to make them fit our theories, we are attempting to ground our theories in what the ancients actually believed rather than just imposing our modern assumptions on them.
QQ: I didn’t put words in anyone’s mouths. I mentioned that Maya had Observatories such as El Caracol and the Casa Grande ruins of AZ and Mexico aligned to the cardinal directions used today. But you claim the Maya used different concepts for directions, as if they were stupid despite having observatories and buildings and pyramids aligned to the cardinal directions.
Q: First it was Joseph Smith who didn’t know the location of Cumorah.
Know it’s everyone in the Maya population who couldn’t understand simple directions.
A: Wrong on both counts. As for Joseph not knowing where the Book of Mormon Cumorah was/is–that is actually a fact from the available historical evidence. Argue with the historians and the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve who have vetted their work in both Saints and in the Gospel Topics essays. If you have a problem with me, you have a really big problem of not sustaining our leading authorities.
As for the Maya not understanding directions, again, you are extremely wrong. My evidence is based on their language usage–not on English. Which you might know if you would actually read the blog post (and supporting article).
QQ: The Gospel Topics essays are not scripture. They’re essays. Look up the definition:
1: A short literary composition on a single subject, usually presenting the personal view of the author.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/essay
The Gospel Topics Essays don’t even quote Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery.
How can I have a problem with our leading authorities when you can’t even quote Joseph Smith? You’ve already removed him from this conversation. Multiple times. When anyone brings him up, you immediately dismiss him. You’ve censored him. He’s not useful. He should be ignored. You can’t even bring him up over the false assumption he wrote the Times and Seasons articles about Central America.
And “Saints” is not scripture. In its introduction the First Presidency stated Saints, “is a narrative history” which is the practice of writing history in a story-based form.
But again, your appeal to authority is to yourself. You’re not using Joseph Smith, scripture, historical and archaeological discoveries to prove your argument.
You and you alone know it and no one else. Then to avoid any replies, you remove the reply button to end the conversation. Which makes you a censor. You don’t even believe in Freedom of Speech.
QQ: Thus your appeal to authority it to yourself and to your knowledge of the Yucatec language. That’s not very convincing. I thought the language was Reformed Egyptian a dead language unknown to anyone as stated in the text. How and why did Yucatec appear in this conversation? Because you’re already decided Mesoamerica fits the geography while trying to prove it fits?
A: Your “appeal to authority” was also to yourself, except you only based it on what seemed logical to you. The question was whether such a word existed. You said it did. The actual language said it didn’t. The authority is the language, not me.
QQ: Why would you assume I hadn’t read it? Because anyone who reads your words would believe as you?
A: No, it was because that I assumed that had you read it you would understand that your questions were not about what I said. If you are saying you did read it, why didn’t you understand it? How did you miss that I don’t support Sorenson’s skewing of directions, when that was the very point I made?
QQ: I didn’t put words in anyone’s mouths. I mentioned that Maya had Observatories such as El Caracol and the Casa Grande ruins of AZ and Mexico aligned to the cardinal directions used today. But you claim the Maya used different concepts for directions, as if they were stupid despite having observatories and buildings and pyramids aligned to the cardinal directions.
A: Did you miss my answer that the Maya did understand that a representation could be the center? The difference is in the conception of what is included, not the ability to understand the representative center point.
QQ: The Gospel Topics essays are not scripture. They’re essays. Look up the definition:
A: Of course they are not scripture. History isn’t scripture (save the Joseph Smith history in the Pearl of Great Price–which is brief). However, as I noted, these essays have been vetted and approved. That is a step below history, but above suggesting that the Church has not authorized those statements.
QQ: The Gospel Topics Essays don’t even quote Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery.
A: I wonder why not? Perhaps it is for the reasons that scholars have stated, which is that Joseph Smith didn’t use the term until late. Are you suggesting that you believe Oliver was the prophet and not Joseph? Why don’t you believe Joseph?
QQ: How can I have a problem with our leading authorities when you can’t even quote Joseph Smith? You’ve already removed him from this conversation. Multiple times. When anyone brings him up, you immediately dismiss him. You’ve censored him. He’s not useful. He should be ignored. You can’t even bring him up over the false assumption he wrote the Times and Seasons articles about Central America.
A: That would be damning if it were remotely true. What I have said is what the Church endorses–there is no revelation on the topic. The Church accepts the historians’ information, as do I. The idea that Joseph didn’t write the articles about Central America is one of Neville’s interesting arguments. However, historians don’t necessarily accept that, and it does not avoid the fact that Joseph was the editor. This leads to the incompatible suggestion that when Oliver used Cumorah it must have been true, else Joseph would have corrected it. However, when an article under Joseph’s editorship is said to differ from Joseph’s opinion–Joseph didn’t care to correct it. Which is it? It is the very same argument. The best resolution is the one the scholars propose, which is that Joseph was open to multiple locations for the Book of Mormon and shifted his opinion over time–because there had been no revelation. By the way, the Times and Seasons is the only evidence. We also have Joseph’s letters to Bernhisel which corroborate Joseph’s opinion on Central America.
QQ: Then to avoid any replies, you remove the reply button to end the conversation. Which makes you a censor. You don’t even believe in Freedom of Speech.
A: I have no idea what you mean about removing the reply button. I have no ability to do that. Am I a censor? Yes. I approve or reject comments that come in. We have guidelines for the comments, and when those submitted don’t follow them, I don’t approve. Some might be comments that are drive-by insults to the Church that are unrelated to any topic. I don’t approve those. Some don’t fit within the guidelines of respectful discourse. I do try to communicate with the one who sent the comment in so that they understand the reason it wasn’t approved. Some people change their post and then it is approved. Some people don’t learn.
It is possible that the second spindle pointed north. Or maybe not.
In 1 Nephi 16, we read, “And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the pointers which were in the ball, that they did work according to the afaith and diligence and heed which we did give unto them.”
Here it seems a spindle pointed at writing. Perhaps to wild beasts
It may be it pointed to words for travel, hunting, water, etc. Perhaps when not in use or times of disobedience, it pointed to a default name ll position.
So, how the liahona worked is speculation.
Why would it be speculation when Alma and others called the Liahona a compass?
Do we now have to wrestle with the scriptures about the definition of a compass?
How would Nephi know he was going “nearly a south-southeast direction” if the other spindle didn’t point north as a reference point? The words “nearly a south-southeast direction” appeared on it, because Nephi couldn’t figure that out by looking at a compass?
Nephi easily could have placed a stick, vertically into the ground, then traced the path of the shadow from two points for some 15-30 minutes to determine the direction of the sun then the cardinal directions. But that’s not as accurate as “nearly a south-southeast direction.”
Why does everything have to be complicated to fit a geography theory. Where’s the practicality?
“Why does everything have to be complicated to fit a geography theory. Where’s the practicality?” As you will continue to see, that is precisely the problem I have with the Heartland geography. So many things are manipulated to create a fit that still doesn’t fit–such as a river that is a sea, but not until it is further south than the west sea that is related to Zarahemla. I notice that you are quick to criticized what you don’t believe, but offer no defense of what you do believe, save that you believe it.
James,
Joseph’s translation calls it a compass. We don’t know what Alma called it, as he was speaking in a native language (Hebrew? Nahuatl? Cherokee? Aymara?) and then translating into a Reformed Egyptian that was changing over generations
You’ll note that what we call the Urim and Thummim is called Interpreters in the BoM. They didn’t use the Hebrew term, likely available on the Brass Plates Perhaps the term was closest to what was available in Reformed Egyptian. Are there R E. Words for compass, U&T, etc? Did Joseph use modern terms that approximated ancient foreign words?
Again how do we really know what word Alma actually used?