Continuing from the last posts
showing the fallacy of the Mesoamerican Theorists’ view of the Isthmus of
Tehuantepec in being the narrow neck of land—it becomes clear that this isthmus
is the real Achilles heel of every Mesoamerican model. In pursuing this, the
following is mostly from John E. Clark, himself a Mesoamericanist and follower
of John L. Sorenson’s model, in which he defends the Mesoamerican Theory.
Clark’s argument follows:
1. “Sorenson's critics, insist that directions are universal
absolutes that conform to American common sense. In this regard it is worth
stressing that "common sense" is cultural code for culturally
dependent knowledge that makes little sense outside one's own time or place.”
Response: Actually,
“common sense,” is defined as “good sense and sound judgment in practical
matters,” and also “sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized
knowledge, training, or the like—normal native intelligence,” and “sound
judgment derived from experience rather than study,” and “sound and prudent
judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.” It comes from
the Latin sensus communis, meaning
“common feelings of humanity.” Ralph Waldo Emerson (far leftg) made an issue out of the
value of “common sense and common conscience,” Aristotle, Cicero, and Edison all
spoke of its importance, as did Harriet Beecher Stowe, Thomas Payne, and
Vladimir Nakokov. It can hardly be said that common sense “makes little sense
outside one’s own time or place.” As Victor Hugo (left) said, “Common sense is in
spite of, not the result of, education.”
As for the universal absolutes,
all people think in terms of direction, either personal orientation (the way they are facing, etc.) or standard
points (topographical compass points). It would seem that
when a prophet (Mormon) wrote down “north” or “northward,” and another prophet, Joseph Smith (left), working under the influence of the spirit, wrote down “north”
or “northward,” then it is only common sense that we understand this to mean “north” or “northward” and not make an
attempt to try and claim that these directions meant something else entirely--after all, Joseph Smith, and certainly the Spirit, would know the orientation of "north" in the same sense as we do.
Of course, that’s my common sense, but to Clark, it “is cultural code for culturally dependent knowledge that makes little
sense outside one's own time or place.”
2. “We may be tempted to think automatically
that "northward" and "southward" label directions that are
the same as "north" and "south." But "northward"
signals a different concept than does "north," something like
"in a general northerly direction." By their frequency of using the -ward suffix, we can infer that
Mormon and his ancestors used a somewhat different cultural scheme for
directions than we do. However, we cannot tell from the Book of Mormon text
exactly how their concepts differed from ours, because all we have to work with
is the English translation provided through Joseph Smith.”
Response: It would
appear that the words north and northward are the same in the scriptural
record. Take for instance Mormon’s comment regarding the division of the Land
of Zarahemla from the Land of Nephi: “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, emphasis mine).
Now here are three
directions, north, east and west given in the singular term, describing a
specific direction. In the following verse, the direction of west is used three
times. Then in the following verse, the term northern is used to describe the
same direction as north was used in vs 27: “the Nephites had taken possession
of all the northern parts of the land
bordering on the wilderness” (Alma 22:29, emphasis mine), which wilderness is
that narrow strip of wilderness spoken of in vs.27. Also, in vs.29, the term
west, east, and north are used again—north describing the same area as
“northern.”
In addition, Bountiful
was both northward and in the north. We see this in the
statements: “on the north, even until
they came to the land which they called Bountiful” and “Thus the land on the northward was called Desolation, and the
land on the southward was called Bountiful,” also “that thereby they should
have no more possession on the north,
that they might not overrun the land northward”
(Alma 22:33, emphasis mine). It can also be seen in: “he named all the land
which was south of the land
Desolation, yea, and in fine, all the land, both on the north and on the south --
A chosen land” (Alma 46:17, emphasis mine). And “he did not tarry in the land
of Zarahemla, but he did march forth with a large army, even towards the city
of Bountiful; for it was his determination to go forth and cut his way through
with the sword, that he might obtain the north
parts of the land” (Helaman 1:23, emphasis mine).
Also, while the Land
Northward is generally called just that, we also see it referred to as the
north: “there they did fortify against the Lamanites, from the west sea, even
unto the east; it being a day's journey for a Nephite, on the line which they
had fortified and stationed their armies to defend their north country” (Helaman 4:7, emphasis mine). “They did have an
exceeding plenty of gold, and of silver, and of all manner of precious metals,
both in the land south and in the land
north” (Helaman 6:9, emphasis mine), and “the land south was called Lehi
and the land north was called Mulek,
which was after the son of Zedekiah; for the Lord did bring Mulek into the land north, and Lehi into the land
south” (Helaman 6:10, emphasis mine), and “They did raise grain in abundance,
both in the north and in the south; and they did flourish
exceedingly, both in the north and in
the south” (Helaman 6:12 emphasis
mine).
Another example is
found in Alma: “began
in that same year to build many cities on the north, one in a particular manner
which they called Lehi, which was in the north by the borders of the seashore”
(Alma 50:15)
Then, in the
following verse, the term northward
is used: “And it bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it being
so far northward that it came into
the land which had been peopled and been destroyed” (Alma 22:30, emphasis
mine). Now in this statement, there are at least eight ways to say it:
1) it being so far
northward
2) It being so far to
the north
3) it being so far
northwards
4) it being so far up
north
5) it being so far
toward the north
6) it being so far
northbound
7) it being so far in
the north
8) it being so far
northwardly
Any one of these, and
probably others, would convey the same meaning. Thus, to build an issue out of the "-ward" suffix in order to justify a completely different oriented land than that shown in the Book of Mormon is simply disingenuous.
(See the next post,
“The Narrow Neck of Land One More Time – Part VII—Mesoaermicanists’ Achilles
Heel,” for more on this difficult area for the Mesoamerican Theorist model to
reconcile with the scripture)
No comments:
Post a Comment