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 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 continues :
4. Clark also states:
"These seas [that flanked the Land
of Promise] had to be the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, respectively, because
Lehi arrived from the Old World across the west sea (see Alma 22:28), and the
party that brought Mulek from the land of Judah came 'across the great waters'
(Omni 1:16) to the 'borders by the east sea.' The city of Mulek was located in
that area and was presumably near the location where they first settled (see
Alma 51:26)." Sorenson, Mormon's
Map, 20.”
Response: First, we
have dealt with the words “flanked the Land of Promise” before, since that term
suggests just two seas on one side and the other; however, Helaman 3:8 makes it
clear there were four seas, and they seem to be opposite one another, or in the
four compass directions.
An island, by its very nature, is surrounded by water. By modern standards, such water is generally given a singular name, such as Pacific Ocean or Mediterranean Sea, however, the waters close in to the island are often given local names, such as the Tasmanian Sea between New Zealand and Australia, or the Timor Sea and Coral Sea around Australia, or the Balearic Sea off Palma in the Med
Second, Omni 1:16 does say “across the great waters”
but does not say or suggest “to the borders by the east sea.” In fact, the scriptural
record says: “And they journeyed in the
wilderness, and were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters,
into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that
time forth,” which land, of course, has to be the Land of Zarahemla since that is where Mosiah discovered them (Omni 1:13)--and they had dwelt there from that time forth, that is from the time the Lord brought them into the land. Thus, they were living in the City of Zarahemla and the land of Zarahemla, which over time, became the
capitol of the Nephite nation. There is no mention that the people of
Zarahemla, who were the Mulekites, ever occupied the city of Mulek, which was
on the east coast. Now, in an assumptive sense, we can suggest that the seas
that surrounded the Land of Promise, were the Atlantic and Pacific oceans as
Clark claims, since Lehi sailed into the Arabian Sea, and Jacob tells us the
Lord led them across the sea and that they were on an island of the sea (2
Nephi 10:20), so they were on an island surrounded by these oceans, which they
called the Sea North, Sea East, Sea South, and Sea West (Helaman 3:8). As for
where they settled, the Mulekites settled in the land where Mosiah found them,
that is, the Land of Zarahemla—more than that cannot be stated other than the
fact that they settled in the city called Zarahemla, not the city of Mulek.
5. “The directional trend of the two lands and
the neck was generally north-south. The east sea (six references) and the west
sea (twelve references) were the primary bodies of water that bounded this
promised land. But notice that the key term of reference is not "land
north" (only five references) but "land northward" (thirty-one
references). There is, of course, a distinction; "land northward"
implies a direction somewhat off from literal north. This implication that the
lands are not simply oriented to the cardinal directions is confirmed by
reference to the "sea north" and "sea south" (Helaman 3:8).
These terms are used only once, in reference to the colonizing of the land northward
by the Nephites, but not in connection with the land southward. The only way to
have seas north and south on a literal or descriptive basis would be for the
two major bodies of land to be oriented at an angle somewhat off true
north-south. That would allow part of the ocean to lie toward the south of one
and another part of the ocean to lie toward north of the other.”
Response: To Clark’s
credit, he at least acknowledges that the Land of Promise is a north-south
oriented land. However, the Land Northward and Land North, in addition to
showing directions, could also in the Hebrew mind denote distance. That is, the
Land North was a closer area to the north, but beyond that land was another,
larger land, called the Land Northward. To understand this, we need to see how
the Land North was used separately from the Land Northward. First, the “land on
the northward was called Desolation, and the land on the southward was called
Bountiful” (Alma 22:31), thus we can definitely see that the Land Northward was
that area north of the narrow neck of land.
However, the Land North was south of the narrow neck as Moroni declared in his claim of liberty: “And it came to pass that when he had poured out his soul to God, 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, and the land of liberty
” (Alma 46:17). Note
that he was naming the land “which was
south of the land Desolation” and he called it the land on the north and
the land on the south. That is, there was a division of land in the Land
Southward, that land north of the narrow strip of wilderness (between the Land
of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla) was called the Land North and that south of
the narrow strip was called the Land South, for “Now 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). This is also seen in the preceding verse: “And
it came to pass that they became exceedingly rich, both the Lamanites and the
Nephites; and 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).
We also see this
division in 3 Nephi when Lachoneus had the Nephites “gather themselves together
in the land southward, because of the
great curse which was upon the land northward” (3 Nephi 3:24, emphasis mine),
so when the Robbers came down out of the hills, they would have been in the
Land Southward (3 Nephi 4:2), they “began to take possession of the lands, both
which were in the land south and
which were in the land north, and
began to take possession of all the lands which had been deserted by the
Nephites, and the cities which had been left desolate” (3 Nephi 4:1, emphasis
mine).
As for Clark’s belief
that the Land of Promise was not “oriented to the cardinal directions,” which he bases
on the “reference to the sea north
and sea south (Helaman 3:8). These
terms are used only once, in reference to the colonizing of the land northward
by the Nephites, but not in connection with the land southward.” This is
obviously due to the fact that there was no colonizing by the Nephites of any
land to the south of their first landing. Nothing unusual about that. On the
other hand, the Sea North is not mentioned to any degree simply because not
much in the Nephite records took place that far to the north. On the other
hand, several actions took place along the east and west seas, so they would
have been mentioned more frequently.
It might be of
interest to consider the scriptural record separate from any model site, which is hard, of course, for any Mesoamericanist to do, but Jacob tells us they were on an island, and he also
tells us they came across the sea and that they landed on this island in that
sea. Thus, if we took an island surrounded by the sea and then, being on that
island, tried to name the sea around us, what terminology would we use? It
could not be just one name, like the Great Sea (Mediterranean). It would have to
have separate names, and since it is an island, the four cardinal directions
would be the ideal name, which was typical of early man—that is, the Sea North, the Sea East, the Sea West, and
the Sea South. This, of course, would not require any particular alignment of
the island. It is only when we start trying to fit these seas around an
existing land mass do we have difficulty with it, especially in the case of
Mesoamerica, which only has two seas, the Gulf of Mexico (to the north) and the Pacific Ocean (to the south).
In that case, you would have to scramble to find another way to explain the
scriptural record, as does Clark, Sorenson, Allen, Hauck, et all.
(See the next post,
“The Narrow Neck of Land One More Time – Part IX—Mesoaermicanists’ Achilles
Heel,” for more on this difficult area for the Mesoamerican Theorist model to
reconcile with the scripture)
No comments:
Post a Comment