Continuing with John R’s January 2014 rebuttal of
our March 1, 2011 article series on Mesoamerica, which did not come to our
attention until now, we find him writing:
John R: “To
assert that one knows what a writer means when he writes something that’s
clearly dubitable…”
Response: One might want to consider that the entire
purpose of communication is to be understood. Clearly, Mormon’s entire writing
is for us, his reader(s), to understand what he is saying and what he means. A
statement from Teaching, No Greater Call,
states: “One way to encourage diligent
learning is to listen carefully when someone asks a question or makes a
comment. Listening is an expression of love. It often requires sacrifice. When
we truly listen to others, we often give up what we want to say so they can
express themselves.”
The same may be said of reading. Sometimes, we have
to give up our pre-conceived ideas so we can learn and understand what someone
writes; however, not all speakers and writers are so clear they cannot be
misunderstood from time to time. Thus, one must learn to understand a person’s
meaning from the reasonable and logical interpretation of what is said or
written. This does not mean to make up things that are not included, but to
understand what is meant.
Take, for instance, Nephi’s early parenthetical
comment: “(my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days).” What
is Nephi telling us in that simple thought he injected into his record? Note
that it is found within a sentence that had nothing to do with where his father
lived—“For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign
of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all
his days); and in that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the
people that they must repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed” (1
Nephi 1:4).
Most people simply pass over the significance of one
word—“at.” Most tend to insert in their mind the word “in” instead. But “at
Jerusalem” means without, while “in
Jerusalem” means within. So, Nephi is
telling us the importance of where
Lehi lived, which we can easily understand. So, not changing, altering, or explaining away, nor adding or subtracting, from Nephi’s
words in any way, we find he is telling us that his father lived in the land of
Jerusalem, in a home outside the city walls, where later we find he had donkeys
(enough to carry the tents), seeds (enough “of every kind” to plant in the Land
of Promise), tents (more than one), and supplies (provisions), and with all
this, he was able to secretly drift into the desert (into the wilderness) with
his entire family and belongings without anyone knowing.
If we thought he lived inside the walls of
Jerusalem, and knew about city life there at that time, we would question the
validity of this record that would have Lehi possessing things he would have
had no reason to own, nor any place to keep in the tiny confines of Jerusalem.
The
Old City of Jerusalem. At the time of Lehi, it was only 0.35 square miles in
size. There was no room for animals or extra, non-essential items. Those
visiting the area today are struck with its tiny size. Note how narrow are the
“streets,” bordered by buildings throughout
If he had lived within the city, we would also
question how he could have sneaked away with his entire family, donkeys, and
possessions under the very noses of the Jews who sought his life (1 Nephi 2:1).
In this way, you can come to know what a writer
means because he has told you, and you can easily see the validity of the information and the time.
Another example is when Nephi tells us twice he was
“driven forth before the wind towards the promised land” (1 Nephi 18:8, 9). By
knowing this, one can look for currents, winds, etc., that would drive “forth,”
i.e., push forward a ship, and thus know where his ship went. This also tells
us that the sails on his “sailing” ship were not moveable, i.e., he could not
tack, for this would mean he was being dragged or “lifted” forward.
The
oceans gyres and currents, along with the world’s winds, are constant and
minutely recorded. Drift voyages, like Lehi’s, follow winds and currents and
are extremely predictable
The point is, a reader has to know what the writer
means, or he is simply wasting his time reading. On the other hand, this does
not give the reader license to substitute or insert his own words for those of the
writer, change the meaning of the writer, or show us why the prophet-writer
isn’t accurate, which is what Mesoamericanists are always doing.
John R: “In Alma 22:27, the king sends a
proclamation throughout his realm “which was bordering even to the sea, on the
east and on the west.” But then it’s separated by “a narrow strip of
wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west.” The region did
not run from coast to coast, but to the narrow strip. When the prophet wishes
to insert “sea” he does so; but to assume “sea” in verse 32 when it doesn’t
state “sea” is to misrepresent the text.”
The Land of Nephi ran
from the Sea East to the Sea West (Alma 22:27) and the Land of Zarahemla ran
from coast to coast also, which is clearly seen in Mormon’s comment that both
these lands were nearly surrounded by water (Alma l22:32) except there being a
small neck of land between (Alma 22:32). Now, separating (like a border) these
two lands (the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla) is a narrow strip of wilderness running the entire length of this
common border, that is, from the Sea East to the Sea West (Alma 22:27).
Mormon clearly tells us that the Land of Nephi stretched from the East Sea to the West Sea; he also clearly tells us that the Land of Zarahemla ran to the north of the Land of Nephi and from sea to sea; and he also tells us that a narrow strip of wilderness ran from sea to sea between the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla
As to misrepresenting
the text, this point is covered in a previous post in this series regarding the
narrow neck of land being narrow with
seas on either side. There is no misrepresentation involved at all. It is what
Mormon tells us, when reading all his descriptions and not just the one(s) you
like.
John R: “Thus, the “day and a half” could be a
distance from the west sea to someplace in the east, such as a strip of
wilderness that was not navigable, but not all the way to the east sea. Perhaps
it went east to an established trail of some sort?”
Response: You cannot
have it both ways. The narrow neck is narrow—not wide; you call the narrow neck
an isthmus, which is, in every dictionary, described as a narrow strip of land with seas on both sides. How far across
does this strip of land have to be that it cannot be reached from one sea to
the other in a day-and-a-half journey from sea to sea? Your argument is
misleading and fallacious, and has been dealt with several times in this series
of posts.
John R: “We must take care that we don’t go too far
north or south, but remain in the parameters established by what the Book of
Mormon writers wrote, what Moroni said when he introduced himself to Joseph
Smith”
Response: Hard to get
any further north or south than Moroni’s statement of “this continent,” which
up until World War II, meant the entire Western Hemisphere, i.e., North,
Central and South America. Nor can we get further north than Helaman’s comment
about a Sea North, or south than his Sea South (Helaman 3:8). The descriptions
in the scriptural record tell us the parameters of the Land of Promise quite
clearly.
John R: “…and, of course, the comments of Joseph
Smith, himself, who had numerous visions of the cultures and cities of the Book
of Mormon peoples.”
Response: There is no
question that Joseph had numerous discussions regarding the people, their
culture, their achievements, their life-style, etc., for these are the things
he used to tell his family of an evening according to his mother, Lucy Mack
Smith. And according to her record, geography was evidently never mentioned. You might
want to read her writing of these stories Joseph told. However, whether they
were visions or simply the instructions and stories told him by Moroni during
his four year tutelage is unknown.
John R: “Thus, it must be in the North American
continent…”
Response: No, it must
be in the “American continent.” There is a big different, and you might want to
learn about the history of “this continent” before writing about it.
(See the next post, “A Look at a Mesoamericanist
Rebuttal – Part VIII,” for more on John R’s rebuttal of our six-part post on Narrow Neck of Land and the Fallacy of
Mesoamerica’s Isthmus of Tehuantepec.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment