In the last three posts, we have responded to two articles
on Don R. Hender’s website. The last post and this one (below) have to do with
his article Mormon’s
Internal Map Defined.
Article: “…his
third journey was across the Indian and Pacific Oceans, and now his 'fourth
journey' in the land of promise was no more than a walk around the block? That
is not consistent to the manner and way the Book of Mormon uses the term to
journey.”
Response: The fourth journey was across the sea,
probably about 10,000 miles. Consequently, the term journey in these cases
covers anything from about 180 miles to about 10,000 miles—obviously, a rather
elastic use of the term journey. We should keep in mind that the term “journey”
is also used to describe a partial event, as in “as we journeyed in
the wilderness, behold Laman and Lemuel, and two of the daughters of Ishmael,
and the two sons of Ishmael and their families, did rebel against us” (1 Nephi
7:6).
The
term is also used differently in “we did return without food to our families,
and being much fatigued, because of their journeying, they did suffer much for
the want of food” (1 Nephi 16:19), which in reality could be “traveling”
“walking” “trekking” or “roaming” (see also 1 Nephi 17:2). Now, in the use of
the term Hender refers to as “a walk around the block” the term “journeyed” is
used, suggesting they were traveling around their new land to discover what was
there, which Nephi then tells us what they found. Therefore, it cannot be said
that the term “journey” has a singular use in the Book of Mormon, for most of
these uses are not consistent.
Article:
“The
concept rather is that for Lehi to journey in the land of promise he left the
site of first landing and traveled on in the wilderness to where the 'land of
first inheritance' where they would then be established and settled.”
Response: There is simply no support for this
concept anywhere in the scriptural record. It should be noted that, as
mentioned in the last post, by the time the Nephite Colony landed in the Land
of Promise and came ashore, Lehi and Sariah would have been quite old, and
after an exhausting journey across the sea of some 10,000 miles, no doubt not
interested in traveling inland to find some place that might be better than
along the seashore which, by the way, is where Mormon placed them anyway (Alma
22:28). It is simply Hender’s views that
they went inland, no doubt, to meet the needs of his model.
Article: “Many
a would-be successful colony has failed just because they did not further
journey and explore the land to find out it resources and to settle nearer to
where those they'd need were located. Is that not what the Book of Mormon presents
that Lehi's party did?“
Response: No, it does not say that. In fact, they
did explore their surroundings, perhaps traveling some distance to discover the
animals, ores, etc. (1 Nephi 18:25). What Hender is ignoring, however, is that
the colony had the Liahona, which guided them to the Land of Promise and, no
doubt, told them where to settle there when they landed. They did not need to
look for a better place if that was where the Lord guided them to settle.
Initial settlements were
always along the sea, typically where rivers or streams were nearby that
emptied into the ocean. This allowed for immediate construction of living
quarters and protection as well as water and food, both from fishing in the sea
and hunting inland
Besides, history does not show that colonies formed inland,
but rather along the seashore as the east coast of the U.S. as is well
documented. Early colonies always settled near water and food sources, and
since rivers flow into the sea, the seashore is the natural place for both—fresh
water from the river and fish in the sea. Once settled, of course, people tend
to explore their land, but not until they have settled, built shelters and
secured their safety and food supply.
Article:
“To all who attempt to put a map to the lands of the
Book of Mormon, Alma 22:27-34 is a well known jumping off point. It is here
that Mormon takes the time to give a general picture of the lands of the
Lamanites and Nephites as they were divided into the nation of 'Nephi' and the
nation of 'Zarahemla'.”
Response: While some historians, myself included,
sometimes use the term “nation” to refer to the Nephites overall—for they had a
central government of judges that were elected—all the other groups, including
the Nephites up to and including Mosiah II, were kingdoms. As for the Mulekites,
when they are first introduced to us in Omni, their leader Zarahemla was not
called a king, so we might wonder at what type of government they had, but it
is really unimportant since they joined with the Nephite kingdom, which later
became an elected government, which we might call a nation.
Article: “Oddly
we find that the land and nation of 'Nephi' is actually the nation of the
Lamanites.”
Response: The Lamanites as a whole, or in part, were
never a “nation.” They were a kingdom, having several kings from beginning to
end. What is meant here, no doubt, is that the Land of Nephi, which originally
was the home of the Nephites (from Nephi to Mosiah I), became the land of the
Lamanites after about 400 years, when Mosiah I left for Zarahemla. Then the
Land of Zarahemla became the home of the Nephites. What the Lamanites called
their portion of the land in the far south before expanding to include all of
ther Land of Nephi is not known—Mormon simply referred to it as the Land of First
Inheritance, which is consistent with Hebrew language.
Article: “As
for the nation of 'Zarahemla', that nation and land was originally first
occupied or settled by Mulek, King Zarahemla of the Mulekites being a
descendant of Mulek who was in turn the son of Zedekiah back in Jerusalem some
600 years before the birth of Jesus Christ. So neither the Lamanite or the
Nephite nation was named per themselves as you might think.
Response: We only know that Zarahemla gave a
genealogy of his fathers from memory (Omni 1:18), but we do not know if
Zarahemla was a descendant of Mulek, or one of the others that brought Mulek
out of Jerusalem. Again, we do not know that he was a king. Nor do we know the
term “the people of Zarahemla” has reference to the man, or the name of the
city or land, or just the name of the people in general. At the same time, I
don’t know of anyone reading the scriptures that does not understand the naming
of the Nephites, Lamanites or Mulekites—while the Lamanites and Mulekites were
not nations, perhaps what Hender means is that the Lamanites lived in the Land
of Nephi, and the Nephites lived in the Land of Zarahemla.
Article: “Mormon
lived in the 4th century AD, some 500 years post this given map's
[Alma 22] time, and even at that he only ventured in the actual land or nation
of Zarahemla a small fraction of his life time, less than a decade of his
eighty-ish years.”
Response: Mormon arrived in the Land of Zarahemla at
the age of 11, having traveled with his father from the Land Northward (Mormon
1”6), in which he saw much of the Land Southward. After five years in
Zarahemla, Mormon was made commander of the Nephite army (Mormon 2:1), and from
that time he was fighting battles in the Land Southward until 349 A.D., when at
the age of 39, the Nephites by treaty took over the Land Northward and the
Lamanites the Land Southward—thus, Mormon spent some 28 years in the Land
Southward, and not just in Zarahemla, or traveling around, but overlooking,
planning (mapping) battles, fighting over the land, etc,; all of which would
have given him a very clear picture of the Land Southward.
As for the narrow neck of land, Mormon fought
several battles in and around that area, and fought much in the Land of
Desolation until 375 A.D. So Mormon had far more knowledge of the Land of
Zarahemla than most anyone, both planning out battle sites, and fighting across
that land for 24 years, and around the narrow neck area for another 26 years,
before being confined to the Land Northward, far from the narrow neck area for
the last 10 years of his life. Who else in all the scriptural record had such
an experience of knowing and being in so much of the Land of Promise. Having
been in the military and planning battle ground sites, searching out areas of
attack and defense, I can say that you get a very clear picture of the land and
it is not soon forgotten because of the extreme detail and importance of what
you see and study.
Article: “And
this map [Alma 22] is 100 years prior to the great destructions which occurred
upon the land at the time of the death of Jesus Christ around 34 A.D. Yet many
try to use this 2,000 year, 2 millennia, old map and fit it to the land maps of
today.”
Response: Correct. While a general area might be
located, specific areas and changes in topography would normally make it difficult for
anything specific. However, Mormon had all the records of all the Nephites,
dating from the time of first landing. He knew what all had written about the
land before him. He was in a unique position to have completely traveled the land as already mentioned, and know first hand from the writings of the B.C. Nephites what it was like before the destruction.
(See the next post, “Looking at Mormon’s Internal
Map – Part III,” for more on the articles on his website and the errors he uses
to support his model and views)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment