Continuing with F. Richard Hauck’s
explanations why confusion occurs in reading Mormon’s geography of the Book of
Mormon.
Hauck: “A
classic example of this type of thinking involves the concept that the Nephite
and Lamanite armies marched all the way from mountains and jungles of South
America through the mountains and steaming forests of Central America and the
bare deserts and endless plains of North America to fight a final battle in
upper New York state.”
Response: This statement is just as ridiculous as these
two armies marching all the way from Mesoamerica to battle in upstate New York.
But that is neither a reason to accept or reject either area since nothing in
the scriptural record would lead one to believe that any army marched such distances. On the other hand, there
are plenty of reasons why Mesoamerica and North America are not the locations
for the Land of Promise.
Hauck: “Our
preconceived notions make us blind to what’s written.”
Response: Since Hauck's Ph.D dissertation in 1975
was on “Preconquest Mayan Overland Routes on the Yucatan Peninsula and their
Economic Significance,” one might conclude that his preconceived notions about
Mesoamerica led him to write Deciphering
the Geography of the Book of Mormon in 1988 in which he claimed
Mesoamerica was the Book of Mormon Land of Promise and set about to locate
cities there, etc., and today allows no articles to appear on his BMAF website unless they deal with Mesoamerica as the Book of Mormon lands.
Hauck: “When
we disagree with a verse, there is a tendency to wonder why Mormon made such an
error.”
Response: Does Hauck mean when Mormon wrote that
the Nephites withdrew into defensive positions for protection against the
Gadianton robbers, he disagreed with Mormon claiming it was into the “center
of the land” (3 Nephi 3:21,23), and he wrote: “this conflict was in the narrow neck by the west sea”? (Deciphering the Geography of the Book of
Mormon, p 37.) Or when Mormon wrote that “by the narrow pass
which led by the sea into the land northward, yea, by the sea, on the west and
on the east’ (Alma 50:34), he disagreed by saying “Careful analyses of all the references in the text to this topographic
feature fail to identify the presence of two seas flanking the transportation
corridor. (Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon, p 12). Are these and numerous other disagreements Hauck has with the scriptural record, the
type of examples of disagreeing with Mormon he had in mind?
Hauck: “Almost all of the factors blinding us to
what is written cannot hold us bound if we read the text, if we accept what is
written as scripture from the mouth of the prophets who were there.”
Response: Good advice. Too
bad Hauck didn’t follow that when he wrote: This
analysis demonstrates that the "greater" land northward was actually
northwest of the "greater" land southward and therefore the land
southward was southeast of the homeland of the Jaredite people. Eastward, then, in the Book of Momon context,
meant northeast. Had westward been used,
it would have signified the southwestern quadrant” (Deciphering
the Geography of the Book of Mormon, p 31). After all, Mormon’s description
of the Land of Promise does not talk about anything being northwest or
southeast, or eastward regarding the alignment of the major land divisions and
the lands mentioned within them (Alma 22:27-34).
Hauck's explanation is so convoluted that it hardly makes sense, however, when
compared with the scriptures, shows that it is only wishful thinking on his
part to justify his Mesoamerican model which is skewed about 90º off the
directional terms used in the scriptures.
As an example, in describing the land of promise, we find Alma
describing the land north of Zarahemla which the Nephites controlled: "On
the north, even until they came to the land which they called Bountiful"
(Alma 22:29), and "That thereby they [Lamanites] should have no more
possess on the north, that they might not overrun the land northward"
(Alma 22:33)
After all, “On the north” is quite plain. Everyone knows what "on the north"
should mean. It cannot be justified, no
matter how hard Hauck and others try, to place the land "on the north"
into an area to the west, or east, or south! However, regarding this, Hauck
claims on page 25 in his book:
Hauck: “The Book of Mormon contains a variety of
terms relating to directions and geographic locations that can be interpreted
with various meanings”
Response: North,
south, east, and west are used as directions: north 24 times; south 22 times;
east 30 times; and west 29 times. In
each case, the use of the direction is specific and exact. Also, the term "in the south" is
mentioned once, and "in the north" is mentioned 3 times. In addition,
regarding seas: Sea North is used 1time; Sea South 1time; Sea West or West Sea
12 times; Sea East or East Sea 6 times. Also,
there is mentioned 3 times the term "east to the west sea, and once the
west sea to the east. As for land, the Land North is mentioned 4 times; Land
South is mentioned 5 times. As for wilderness, the East Wilderness is mentioned
7 times; South Wilderness is mentioned 3 times. As for winds, the East Wind is
mentioned twice, and for valleys, the West Valley is mentioned once. In
addition, North countries is mentioned 5 times, and South Countries 1 time. As
for borders, the term South borders is mentioned once. In addition to all of
this, the scriptural record uses the terms “northward,” “southward,” “eastward,”
and “westward,” which are not ambiguous terms, numerous times to depict the
following: Northward 9 times; Southward 4 times; and Eastward 3 times. The term
"on the northward" is mentioned twice. The Land Northward is
mentioned 31 times; Land Southward 15 times; and the "land which was
northward" is mentioned 4 times. Finally, the country which was southward
is mentioned once.
Now, if all these very
clearly stated terms “can be interpreted
with various meanings” as Hauck claims, then indeed the Book of Mormon is a
mass of confusion, confusing terms, and confusing descriptions. In fact, not in
one single case does the term used seem ambiguous, nor do any of the words
convey numerous meanings. Northward is,
after all, northward. It was meant that
way in the scriptures, for north and northward are used to describe the same
movement as in Bountiful was north of Zarahemla (Alma 22:23, 29), and Bountiful
was northward of Zarahemla (Alma 63:4).
The terms of direction are only confusing to those who try to use these
cardinal compass points to justify an oblique land of promise, such as
Mesoamerica. As an example:
• The Nephites possessed all the land northward, yea, even all the land which
was northward of the land Bountiful
(Alma 50:11). Northward of Bountiful was
the land of Desolation, and Moroni refers to the land southward as all the land which was south of the land of
Desolation (Alma 46:17) which shows that the term northward and north
referred to the same land and direction and south as in the opposite
direction—there is nothing ambiguous about that or do these two terms mean
something else.
• All the land northward of Bountiful is also
referred to as this north country
(Ether 1:1) and Helaman uses this same term to describe the land northward of
Zarahemla (Helaman 4:7). Yet, Desolation
is called northward of Bountiful, and the land beyond that is also called
northward, thus showing that north and northward in this sense are synonymous
terms and there is nothing ambiguous about that nor do these two terms mean
something else.
• Alma refers to hemming "in the Lamanites
on the south, that thereby they should have no more possession on the north, that they might not
overrun the land northward” (Alma
22:33). This, of course, shows that the
north and land northward are synonymous directions, since it would be hard to
hem in someone on the north if that
was not in the same direction as the land
northward which you were trying to keep them from entering. There is
nothing ambiguous about that nor do these terms mean something else.
• When the fighting was over the Nephites
returned to their own lands...both on the north and on the south, both on the
land northward and on the land southward (3 Nephi 6:2), thus north and
northward, and south and southward are clearly and understandably used and
there is nothing ambiguous about it.
There are many more
examples one could use of Hauck’s very sloppy attempts at claiming the scriptural
record says things it does not, but the idea is quite clear as shown above. To him there
is only one place in the world where the Land of Promise is located, therefore
all scripture must relate to it—if it does not, then it is changed to do so, or
claimed it means something else. Hauck himself states: “Almost all of the
factors blinding us to what is written cannot hold us bound if we read the
text, if we accept what is written as scripture from the mouth of prophets who
were there, and get nervous any time we find ourselves “explaining” away any
verse that is uncomfortable to us. The most correct book upon the face of the
earth is not riddled with geographic errors.” Too bad he doesn’t live up to his
own words!
No comments:
Post a Comment