Ever willing to go against the scriptures to prove his Mesoamerican model, John L. Sorenson, in his book “An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon,” on page 146 writes:“Latter-day Saints are not used to the idea that other people than Lehi’s immediate descendants were on the Book of Mormon scene. Abundant evidence from archaeological and linguistic studies assures us that such people were indeed present, so we need to understand how the Book of Mormon account accommodates that fact.”
Let’s take Sorenson’s statement one sentence at a time:
“Latter-day Saints are not used to the idea that other people than Lehi’s immediate descendants were on the Book of Mormon scene.”
The reason for this is simple. There is no other indication, suggestion, hint, or idea in the entire scriptural record to suggest such a thing. Latter-day Saints rely on the scriptures because they were written by prophets, translated by a prophet under the guidance of the spirit and the Urim and Thummim, and have been attested to by hundreds of thousands of people who have read and studied them.
“Abundant evidence from archaeological….”
No matter what archaeological evidence is found, the scriptures are not in question here. Consequently, one might say, if “abundant evidence from archaeological” finds in Mesoamerican suggest something different than the scriptures, why not abandon the Mesoamerian model as not the Land of Promise? Why work so hard to maintain a model when it does not agree with the scriptures? Find one that does!
“…and linguistic studies assures us that such people were indeed present.”
Since linguistics is the study of the nature, structure, and variation of language, including phonetics, phonology, morphology, what possible linguistic evidence could possibly be shown about a period from 600 B.C. to 421 A.D.? There are no records of this period other than the Book of Mormon. There are no languages surviving that can be attributed to this period of time. Even if there were, we would not know their meaning, their pronunciation, or their use. How people speak today, 1600 years after the fact in Central or South America has no bearing on how they spoke long before any records are available. Besides, in 1600 years, a language often changes dramatically (take the case of the Mulekite language in just 400 years—the Nephites could not understand the Mulekite language even though they were both from Jerusalem).
“…studies assures us that such people were indeed present.”
There is no possible way that anyone today can know who or what existed in the entire Western Hemisphere over 1600 years ago when there are no records (other than the Book of Mormon), writings, inscriptions, or any other type of evidence that can be dated to that period that has any meaning in terms of words. Hieroglyphics, or other symbols, after all, do not contain words, but ideas (a glyph of a man in a ship may mean rowing, sailing, transportation, etc.) Furthermore, the sound-based phonetic symbols of Mayan do not belong to an alphabet like the letters of the Latin alphabet, where each consonant and vowel has its own symbol. Even words determined by the Mayan do not translate to the same meaning as we would place on them—-thus, we have to have a key to understand them (the Rosetta Stone)—-but that does not tell us what they mean, only how we interpret them.
“…so we need to understand how the Book of Mormon account accommodates that fact.”
What we need to understand is that the scriptures are accurate as written and if man’s ideas or findings do not agree with them, then man’s ideas and findings are inaccurate. We need not try to change scriptural meaning, but need to change what we know and perceive to match the scriptures. If Mesoamerica does not match the scriptures—-then Mesoamerican Theorists should stop trying to shove their model down our throats by altering the scriptures, and start looking for a place that does match the scriptural record!
No comments:
Post a Comment