skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Continuing with this fifth
part of the meaning of words and statements
3. “Niagara means
“neck”…narrow neck of land in the case of the Book of Mormon” Ana M.
Response: At present, there are
two specific opinions on this matter, and they are strictly opinions.
”In the area we know today as
Niagara River, including the Niagara Falls, the word “Niagara” first or
originally appeared in the form “Onguiaahra,”
in the writings of Jesuit priest Jérôme Lalemant, Superior to the Huron
Mission, in 1641 (though he had not seen the area). However, Lalemant makes no
comment as to the meaning of the name. But a survey of subsequent literature
reveals two dominant interpretations:
1) “Thundering Waters” or some
equivalent to “resounding with great noise.”
2) “Neck,” denoting the strip of
water connecting the “head” and the “body” (Lakes Erie and Ontario).
In 1603, Explorer Samuel de
Champlain’s Des Sauvages, repeats a
native account of “a fall that may be a
league broad, over which an exceeding great current of water descends.” In
1612 on his map of New France, Champlain (though he had not seen the area)
labels the falls “de au”, and in
1632, they are simply numbered “90” on his later map, and described in the
legend as “Waterfall at the end of Lake
St. Louis, of great height, where many kinds of fish are stunned in descending.”
The words “sault de au” are French
for “waterfall,” and Lake St. Louis at the time was the name for Lake Ontario.
In 1641 the peninsula was
occupied by the Neutral Indians, though what they called themselves is
unknown—they were wiped out in 1651, and their language lost. The French
referred to them as “la nation neuter” because of their refusal to become
involved in the longstanding hostilities between the Huron and the Iroquois,
though they themselves were far from peaceful. This left a 170-year gap between
the Neutral Nation’s demise and the Iroquoi, Seneca or Mohawk languages from
which much of the later information was received.
When Lalemant first wrote to his
superiors in France in 1641, it was from information he received from his two
informants, fellow priests Jean de Brébeuf and Pierre Chaumonot, who told him
of the term “Onguiaahra,” which they
applied only to the river, not the Falls. As he described it:
“This Stream or River is that
through which the great lake of the Hurons, or fresh-water sea, empties: it
flows first into the lake of Erié, or of the Nation of the Cat, and at the end
of that lake, it enters into the territory of the Neutral Nation, and takes the
name of Onguiaahra, until it empties into the Ontario or lake of saint Louys,
whence finally emerges the river that passes before Quebec, called the St.
Lawrence.”
Top: Red Arrow: Land of the Huron; Green Arrow: Land of the Iroquois;
Blue Arrow: Land of the Onguiaahra along the Niagara Peninsula; Bottom; The
topography of the area
In this same report, Lalemant
also mentions a Neutral village called Onguiaahra,
and was evidently located close to the Niagara River, but where exactly and on
which side of the river, is not certain. The village would have belonged to the
Onguiarahronon, one of the
constituent tribes of the Neutral peoples.
While Lalemant makes no mention
of the Falls, his successor Paul Ragueneau writes of the waters of Lake Erie being
thrown “over a waterfall of a dreadful height” into Lake Ontario though he does
not state its name. Not until 1656 are the Falls named, on a map by Nicolas
Sanson, where they are called “Ongiara Sault.” Ongiara is believed a variant of
Onguiaahra, with the same spelling on maps by Francesco Bressani in 1657 and
François du Creuz in 1660.
A portion of Nicolas Sanson’s 1656 map of the Great Lakes area. Red
Arrow: points to Ongiara Sault, “Ongiara Waters”
In 1678, explorer Cavelier de La
Salle, with a group of priests, including Louis Hennepin, who was the first
European to publish an account of Niagara Falls based on personal observation.
He wrote in his Desription de la
Louisiane, published in 1683, “le grand Salt de Niagard,” and refers to the
river as “la belle Riviere de Niagara.” From that point on the name in French
became “Saut de Niagara,” the “waters of Niagara,” and the name of the later
Fort de Niagara, established by the french at the mouth of the Niagara River in
1726.
Between 1641 and 1726, however,
there were 40 spelling variants of the name Niagara. Thomas Dongan, Governor of
the Colony of New York spelled the name six differtent ways (Oneigra, Onijagar,
Onyagaro, Onyagars, Onyagro and Onyegra) in letrters he himself wrote between
February 1867 and February 1688, with five other spellings (Oneagoragh,
Oniagoragh, Onjagra, Onnyagaro and Onyagra) appering in official documents
composed by others.
By 1715, however, the name
Niagara, or the Great Fall of Niagara, became standardized in English on
Hermann Moll’s map. The British retained the name Niagara when Fort de Niagara
was captured from the French in 1759, and the first Loyalist settlement on the
west bank of the Niagara River in 1780 was called the Settlement at Niagara.
The name was subsequently applied to the Town and Township of Niagara in 1798,
the Niagara Peninsula in 1820, the Niagara Escarpment in 1850, and many others
thereafter.
When the Iroquois killed off the
Neutral Indians, they used this area between the lakes as a routeway, though
they did establish some villages along the Peninsula, but by the century
(1690s), they were ousted by the Mississauga Ojibwa, who built villages along
Lake Ontario, but left the Niagara Peninsula largely uninhabited, which is one
reason the Peninsula was basically empty when European settlement began, there
having been no significant native presence close to the Canadian side of the
Niagara River since the elimination of the Neutral Nation in 1651.
As for meaning, there is no
agreement or consensus regarding the meaning of “Niagara,” though Alan Rayburn,
considered dean of modern Canadian toponymists, insists that the word means “neck”
(Oxford University Press, 1997); however, he gives no source for his
conclusions, and even he recognizes there are no records to indicate that
meaning since no information was ever written in the 1600-1700s regarding its
meaning. To complicate matters, we have Steward (1945) stating it means “point
of land cut in two,” Harder (1976) “at the neck,” or “across the neck,” or
“bisected bottom lands,” while Hamilton (1978) claims “thunder of waters” or
“resounding with great noise.” In the 1930s, Armstrong gave several suggestions:
from the Neutral Nation words of unknown origin (or possibly simply a variant
of the Neutral Nation word applied to them), a Huron word meaning “thunder of
waters, resounding with great noise,” or an Iroquois word meaning “connecting
water,” “bisected bottom land,” or “divided waterfalls.”
Two suggestions, however, appear
more accepted than others, both given by Henry Rowe Schoolcraft (1793-1864), a
19th century explorer, geologist and ethnologist who, among other
things, worked for the American government as an Indian agent and became an
authority on North American native cultures, and located the source of the
Mississippi River. He lays claim to : 1) Thundering Waters, or 2) Neck.
According to Schoolcraft, and in
the earliest known written statement on the meaning of the word Niagara, “Niagara is an Iroquois words said to signify
the “thunder of waters,” and the word is still pronounced by the Senecas is O-Ni-áá-gáráh, being strongly accented on the third
syllable, while the interjection O, is so feebly uttered that without a nice
attention, it may escape notice.”
Not for another twenty-five
years did another suggestion by Schoolcraft appear, in which he wrote: “This
name is Mohawk. It means, according to Mrs. Kerr, “the neck” the term being
first applied to the portage or neck of land between lakes Erie and Ontario.”
He cites that Mohawk word for neck—onhara—as proof, and lists the equivalents
in Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca (oniawl, oniaah, onyaa, and kaniasa).
As a source, Schoolcraft’s
informant, “Mrs. Kerr,” would have been Elizabeth, widow of Dr. Robert Kerr, an
important surgeon in early Upper Canada. As the daughter of Sir William Johnson
and Mary (Molly) Brant and the niece of Mohawk leader Joseph Brant, Elizabeth
Kerr would have been quite familiar with the Mohawk tongue.
The problem lies in whether or
not there is a single meaning to the word Niagara. If both are correct, though
both of the Iroquois Nation, to the Iroquois the word then meant “thundering
waters,” and to the Mohawk, it meant “neck.”
However, it should be kept in
mind that linguistics was still at an early stage of development in the 19th
century, and people like Schoolcraft were not only self-taught but they were
pioneers breaking new ground in the study of Ameridian languages. It is perhaps
not surprising therefore that no consensus exists.
So we are left with two
principal interpretations of the name, each quite different from the other,
plus a number of other meanings, and no obvious way of deciding which is
correct. The conclusion, is obviously inescapable—we may never know for certain
what the word “Niagara” really means.
Thus, making an issue between
the narrow neck of land of the book of Mormon and trying to claim it referred
to the Niagara Peninsula is outside the range of scholarly research and serves
no purpose but to further one’s own personal views.
What Did Mormon Mean “They
Traveled Nearly East”?
Continuing with this fourth part
of the meaning of words and statements.
4. “How is it that almost all non-Jewish Mormons seem to accept BYU
Professor John L. Sorenson’s change of cardinal directions from Mormon’s
description in Alma 22, for the layout of the Land of Promise? Maybe to a
Westerner the direction east is simply east—but to a Middle Easterner, the
direction of East is everything and there is no way this is all confusing to
anyone who has ever studied eastern thought and religion—the idea is ludicrous
that a Hebrew (ancient Jew) would have to stand with his back to the sea to
know which way east was located. Long
before the first Hebrew crossed over into Palestine, the concept of “East” had
a very significance place in their religious thinking and relationship with God—no
matter where one went, the first thing one did was orient himself to the east”
Shayna D.
You are certainly correct.
However, despite all that we have written on this matter, the idea of an
east-west direction for Mesoamerica persists. But let’s for a moment consider
the result of Sorenson’s changing of Mormon’s description, which he claims
results in the:
1. East Sea is really to the
North
2. West Sea is really to the
South
3. Land Southward is to the east
4. Land Northward is to the west
5. The Land of Zarahemla is to
the west of the Land of Nephi, instead of to the north
6. Land of Bountiful is to the west
of Land of Zarahemla, instead of to the north
7. The Narrow Neck of Land is to
the west of the Land of Bountiful
8. Land of Desolation is to the
west of Bountiful (instead of to the north)
9. Land of Many Waters is to far
west (northwest) of Desolation, instead of to the north
Looking at the issue at hand,
and that is simply that east in Jerusalem is where the sun rises, and east in
Mesoamerica, is where the sun rises. So what should have been the difference?
One of Sorenson’s major points
for his clouding the issue with his “back to the sea” is that in his claims,
the sun rises differently in Mesoamerica than it did in Jerusalem,
consequently, the Nephites when they arrived in Mesoamerica, did not have an
understanding of east and the direction of east and the sun rising in the east;
however, the point to this is that the sun rises and sets during the year just
about the same as it does in Jerusalem as it does from Mexico City to the
Yucatan to Guatemala City in Mesoamerica.
Graph shows the 360º earth and how narrow a distance 1º would be;
consequently, the sun rising and setting within a couple of degrees difference
would make no impact on the visual sighting of that event and cause no problem
for the immigrating Nephites if they had landed in Mesoamerica as Sorenson
claims
In other words, the Nephites
would have had no problem in their new land and no reason at all to determine
directions simply from the most noticeable heavenly object—the Sun’s location.
It was more-or-less in the exact same position it had been from their view at
Jerusalem. So that should dispel that problem, since the Nephites, if they
landed in Mesoamerica, would have been in a sighting line of the sun from
sunrize to sunset very similar to that of Jerusalem (see right side of graphic
above).
The other problem Sorenson sites
is not knowing the direction of east; however, as numerous articles on the
subject now extant by those who obviously know more on the subject than did
Sorenson as to how an ancient Hebrew would have been oriented to our compass
positions, let us consider once again this matter of “east” to the oriental
mind—specifically the Jew and Arab, whose entire life surrounds this issue.
To make certain we are on the same page in Mesoamerica, this NASA
satellite photo shows the area considered to be Mesoamerica with their
directions and the Land of Promise labels added according to the Theorists' placement
Now we need to keep in mind that
the Jews at Jerusalem had been around for about 500 years when Lehi came on the
scene. As Hebrews, they were around since Noah landed the Ark. Their building
expertise had created Solomon’s Temple (built between 970 and 964 B.C., though
some claim it was as late as 1018 B.C.) The point being Israel had many years
of building experience after Solomon’s temple was completed.
Throughout Lehi’s entire life
living at Jerusalem, and the lives of Nephi, Sam and Zoram, the temple was the
epitome of building, with only stone blocks dressed at the quarry used, with no
hammer, chisel or any other iron tool on the temple grounds during
construction. A stairway led from the lowest floor (on the south side) to the
middle level and from there to the third level (I Kings 6:8). The roof itself
was made of cedar plank and attached to the temple by cedar beams (I Kings
6:9). The floor of the temple was covered with planks of juniper, and cedar
planks covered the stone walls so that no stone could be seen, and everything
looked cedar. He then overlaid the entire interior of the temple with pure
gold.
Cheribum carved from olive wood
were made and covered entirely with gold. He made two huge olive wood doors
that were one-fifth the width of the sanctuary and overlaid the doors with hammered
gold.
There were additional buildings, with the temple as part of a splendid series of buildings Solomon constructed in immediate connection with it, which included Solomon's own residence, the palace of Pharaoh's daughter, the throne-room, the porch of pillars, and the house of the forest of Lebanon.
The
ancients were capable of determining true east despite the absence of
compasses. The shadow cast by a gnomen (the "finger" that casts a
shadow of a sundial) at noon was used to determine true north, and the other
cardinal points were established through simple geometry. This method was
accurate to within a few degrees.
In Hebew, as has been discussed
her many times, east, or “mizrach,” is and always has been an important issue.
It is tradition for Jews in the Western Hemisphere to pray facing east, the
direction of Jerusalem and the Temple. So Jews who pray in their homes might
hang a mizrach on an eastern-facing wall
to indicated which way to face when they pray. This is also why the Ark in an
Ashkenazie synagogue is set in an eastern-facing wall.
To the Jews as a
people, they face east because they are facing their land, their unity, their
destiny. They face Jerusalem because they are facing their past, their present
and their future. They face east towards the holiest place on earth, the
foundation stone that bonds the human spirit to its Source. The world, too, is
connecting to its past, its present and its future. The world is facing east
towards its destiny.
When Nephi wrote, “we
did again take our journey in the wilderness; and we did travel nearly eastward
from that time forth” (1 Nephi 17:1), he, like everyone in his party and all
Jews, knew where east was located. It was not something they guessed at or
ignored, it was the very center of their being. The same can be said of the
Arab world—they face east three times a day in their prayers. When Nephi wrote “nearly
eastward,” he knew exactly the direction and wrote it accurately in his record.
When Sorenson tries to claim that the Nephites had a different north and east,
etc., he simply does not understand the Jewish persona. To the Nephites, before
the advent of the Savior, they lived the Law of Moses (1 Nephi 4:15; 2 Nephi
5:10), and in so doing kept the commandments and the traditions associated with
that worship—one of which is knowing and facing east each day! Nor could it have been some other east—to a Jew, there is only one east, the same east we all know and use, only to them it is more than east, it is their entire being, the entire world.
After obtaining the
brass plates from Laban, Nephi and his brothers were sent back to Jerusalem to
obtain Ishmael and his family. As Nephi tells us: “And it came to pass that we
went up unto the house of Ishmael, and we did gain favor in the sight of
Ishmael, insomuch that we did speak unto him the words of the Lord. It came to
pass that the Lord did soften the heart of Ishmael, and also his household,
insomuch that they took their journey with us down into the wilderness to the
tent of our father”(1 Nephi 7:4-5).
So what was meant by
“Ishamel and also his household”? To understand this, we need to keep in mind
that living in the conditions we live in today and have for more than a
century, it sometimes it is difficult to look beyond what we know and
experience to what might have or did exist in a former time that had a
significant influence on people and events.
Today, it is not acceptable
to talk about slavery in a positive manner, or even servitude, yet both existed
in 600 B.C. at the time Lehi left Jerusalem. In fact, the Jewish family at the
time was made up of several parts not experienced in the U.S. in the exact same
manner except during Colonial days. Not only were there slaves, but also servants.
In the agrarian
society of the Jews at the time, land was essential to survival. Furthermore,
the promise that God gave to Abraham and his descendants was inextricably tied
up with each Israelite family having a share in the land as God’s stewards. Two
or three consecutive years of drought, crop failures, or other calamities could
easily force someone to forfeit their land in exchange for goods to survive.
Thus, effecting the ownership of the land and the societal breakdown of the
Jewish family.
As a result, we find
considerable attention given to the protection of land ownership, most notably
in Leviticus 25, but in other passages as well in the Hebrew bible. But a
household wasn't just the land. A household estate “…would include fields,
orchards, vineyards, pastures, livestock, and the tools and implements for
living and working.”
First of all, we need to keep in
mind that ancient Israel was a patri-local society—adult sons, and their entire
families, lived with their father. When they married (usually within the in
clan) the bride came to live in the husband’s father’s house. A separate
structure was often added to accommodate the new couple either attached to
existing structures or adjoining a common courtyard. A group of households
might typically be located together to form villages. In fact, most villages in
Israel’s early history consisted of no more than about 100 people. By the time
of the monarchy some urbanization had begun, that is, others moved into the
village that were not directly related, yet the small rural village framework
was present down to the time of Christ.
So in a way, family can be viewed
as concentric circles with the household at the center, the clan farther out,
and the tribe existing out beyond the clan. But there is another dimension as
well. The Israelites also had a strong sense of connectedness with their
ancestors and with yet to be born descendants.
These latter parts of the family were
understood to be a part of the household, clan and tribe as well. When someone
died they were said to be “gathered with their ancestors.” As time went by, the
ideas of clan, and particularly tribe, became somewhat fictive relationships
without always having a strict biological connection involved. As this
progressed, the village leader, the one who was once the family elder now
became the village elder with less connection to everyone in the village than
previously.
In addition, as work increased at
the family level, that is the family became more involved in increasing the
size and productivity of the family agricultural production and later business,
there was a need to supplement the biological family with an extended family of
workers, either through the principle of slavery or of servitude.
Initially, this servitude was on
a family basis, i.e., individuals came to work for the family, either as
purchased slaves or as indentured servants, or as paid workers. In return for
their work, they were given some type of income, food and shelter within the
family structure.
The Lord made provisions for
these individuals through providing them with specific legal status under the
law, and with specific required treatment and care to be provided by the family
(land owners) themselves.
So how did these notions of changing
household and family influence their understanding of God and of their mission
in the world? How did it change over time? The family automatically became a
“household,” and included all those who worked within or for the household,
such as servants serving the household (maidservants, cooks, tutors,
groundskeepers, house servants and manager of the household), as well as those
serving the fields—planting and maintaining the fields, harvesting, clearing,
etc.; those taking care of the flocks and herds; then there were those who
looked after, protected, and maintained all the property of the household. In
an influential, wealthy and religious family in Lehi’s time, Jewish families
hired or had servants (Shabbos goy—non-Jew) to perform household duties on the
Sabbath that were not to be conducted by the family—such meager things as
blowing out candles, milking cows, heating houses during winter.
In looking at Lehi’s family, we
need to consider that he lived “at Jerusalem,” that is, outside the city on a
property that was his inheritance (1 Nephi 2:4), i.e., he inherited it from his
own family in times past. It was to be handed down to his sons as part of their
own inheritance in the years to come (1 Nephi 2:11) when we pick up the story
of Lehi leaving Jerusalem. It is one of the reasons there was so much
contention between Laman, the older son and the one with the right of primogeniture
under the law, with his younger brother, Nephi (1 Nephi 17:21).
Now, understanding that Lehi was
a wealthy man (1 Nephi 3:16, 22 25), and that he lived at Jerusalem and not
within the city (1 Nephi 1:4), he undoubtedly had not only household servants,
but field hands and others that worked and took care of his property, trusted
ones that made investments, sold and re-invested his wealth, that were part of
his household. No doubt, he also had female household servants as described.
Also, when factoring in that the
Jews sought Lehi’s life, wanting to kill him (1 Nephi 1:20), that he was told
to flee Jerusalem and head into the wilderness with his family (1 Nephi 2:4),
and that Nephi and his brothers fear of leaving Zoram behind to tell of their
flight from Jerusalem (1 Nephi 4:36), it is likely that Lehi would not have
wanted to leave any of his “household” (servants, slaves, etc.) behind to tell
of his departure, and would simply have taken them with him.
This is also consistent with
Jewish law at the time that owners of slaves and elders of household servants,
etc., were responsible for the welfare, care, and lives of their household—Lehi
would have simply taken them with him rather than leave them behind to fend for
themselves without means of income or care for their future.
Thus it is likely, as many
scholars have suggested (though not necessarily Land of Prolmise theorists), that Lehi took his
household with him, as did Ishmael. This latter is especially borne out in the
wordage when Nephi wrote: “the Lord did soften the
heart of Ishmael, and also his household,
insomuch that they took their journey with us down into the wilderness to the
tent of our father” (1 Nephi 7:5, emphasis mine—compare the same usage of “household”
in 1 Nephi 5:14 as applied to “Jacob, and all his household” as well as 2 Nephi 5:10, 12).
Thus,
it can be suggested that probably as much as twice the numbers of people were
in Lehi’s party as most scholars conclude, which would put more people in
Nephi’ temple-building workforce than most people have considered.
Continuing with the second part
of this post regarding what statements in the scriptural record mean, such as
“Not of so many precious things”.
We concluded the previous post
with listing the 183,000 workers Solomon had building his temple. On the other
hand, the Nephites had about ½ of the original party that came with Lehi from
which to draw their workforce—a considerably smaller number, though not as big
a difference as one might at first think.
It can also be said
that in addition to Solomon having so many more workers, Nephi took nearly 3
times as long to build his temple (nearly 20 years compared to 7.5 years). However,
basing time to build solely upon numbers of workers employed without knowing
how long employed and total hours involved can be quite misleading as Solomon’s
183,000 compared to Nephite’s perhaps 50 can show.
While figures can be rearranged to fit almost any scenario or prove any
point, the issue is we do not know the length of time the men worked that are
listed. A small, dedicated workforce, can accomplish the same as or more than a
larger forced labor workforce. Note the 50-man compared to 10,000-man
workforces both accomplishing the same amount of hours worked by knowing
how long each force worked
It should also be
noted that nowhere in the scriptural record do we find any mention of the size
of Nephi’s temple. While it took 183,000 workers to build Solomon’s Temple,
that figure is misleading since it represented separate people, not man-hours,
and also “forced labor” as opposed to volunteer labor. These numbers also
represent men who were forced into labor to serve for a short duration—up to a
month at a time—which does not tell a true story strictly by numbers.
So while 50 men,
based upon hours involved, could do the work of 10,000 over a period of time:
• 50 men working 10 hours
a day, 300 days in a year for a total amount of 150,000 hours.
• 5000 men working 10
hours a day, 10 days in a year for a total amount of 50,000 hours.
• 10,000 men working
10 hours a day, 30 days in a year for a total amount of 150,000 hours.
Or, when considering
the almost three times as long to work, consider:
50 men working 10 hours
a day, 300 days a year, for 20 years = 3,000,000 hours
10,000 men working 8
hours a day, 30 days a year for 7.5 years = 18,000,000 hours
This is a large
difference in man-hours, of course, but nowhere a big a difference as would
first be imagined when considering the overwhelming larger workforce listed for
Solomon.
Of course, it can be
debated as to the number of people in Lehi’s original party, but the numbers
found in Lehi and Ishmael’s families, plus any servants of the household, plus
children born along the way, etc., would not number more than 200 by the time
they reached the land of Promise, with a certain number under ten years of age.
Thus, it can easily be understood that Nephi would have had no more than 50
adult men working on the temple. It might also be understood this was not a
servitude assignment, like Solomon drafting his workers from within his
kingdom, but a work of love in serving the Lord and building his house (compare
with the sacrifice in the building of the Salt Lake Temple).
As to the
magnificence, then, of Solomon’s Temple, we need to consider that he spared no
expense for the building's creation. He ordered vast quantities of cedar wood
from King Hiram of Tyre (1 Kings 5:20-25), had huge blocks of the choicest
stone quarried, and commanded that the building's foundation be laid with hewn
stone. To complete the massive project, he imposed forced labor on all his
subjects, drafting people for work shifts that sometimes lasted a month at a
time. Some 3,300 officials were appointed to oversee the Temple's erection.
Solomon acquired such heavy debts in building the Temple that he was forced to
pay off King Hiram by handing over twenty towns in the Galilee when everything
was completed.
When we factor in
Nephi’s temple undoubtedly being much smaller in size, obviously costing much
less in financial outlay, taking much less time to build, we start to realize
that the numbers some critics like to throw around are not as meaningful as
they seem at first glance,
and therefore taking much less time to
construct, we can get a view of a small, but magnificent building to be
dedicated to the Lord’s work.
So let’s take another
look at the four statements Nephite made:
1. What did Nephi
mean when he said “save it were not built
of so many precious things”?
The temple, which is
the location and housing for the Holy of Holies (Kodesh Kodashim), the most sacred
site in traditional Judaism, found in Solomon’s (the First) Temple. At the time
of Lehi, the Holy of Holies housed the two tablets of the Ten Commandments
inside the Ark of the Covenant (these
disappeared when the Babylonians destroyed the Temple and, therefore, during
the Second Temple era the Holy of Holies was reduced to a small, entirely bare
room).
A similarly high
degree of holiness was ascribed to the altar and incense-altar (Exodus 29:37;
30:10); all the implements of the sanctuary (Exodus 30:29; Numbers 4:4, 19); the things reserved for the
priests or minhah (Leviticus 2:3, 10;
Numbers 18:9; Ezra 42:13); the sin-offering (Levitcus 6:18,22; 10:17); the
guilt-offering (Levitcus 7:1, 6; 31:14); the offering of the leper (because it
belongs to the priests; Levitcus 14:13); and the showbread (Levitcus 29:9).
The
designation "most holy" is also applied to the work of Aaron and his
sons (I Chronicles 6:49).
According to
Josephus, in Solomon’s Temple the Holy of Holies, which formed a part of the
building which was 60 feet high, 40 feet wide, 120 feet long, was the farthest
from the entrance, and called the debir
(the Oracle) and was made of stone of “white marble” (Antiquities 8:3:2).
2. What did Nephi
mean when he said, “for they were not to
be found in the land”?
The white marble stone
would have been hard to come by in the Land of Promise, just as those items
unique to Jewish history and Jerusalem, such as the commandment stones, ark of
the covenant, etc.
Many of the things in
Solomon’s Temple were especially dedicated and consecrated for that very
purpose forming a part of Jewish history that would not have been applicable in
the Land of Promise and obviously not found on the land, just like any artifact
from Nephi’s ship would not have been found in Solomon’s Temple, nor the Liahona,
or other unique dealings with Lehi and Ishmael’s families.
3. What did Nephi
mean when he said, “But the manner of the
construction was like unto the temple of Solomon”?
“Manner of Construction,” means the way
something is built, perhaps suggesting the foundation of hewn rock, overlaid by
wood beams and panels, and then over laid by gold—which was a manner of
construction unique to Solomon’s Temple.
4. What did Nephi
mean when he said, “The workmanship
thereof was exceedingly fine”?
Many of the workmen
who built Solomon’s Temple were hired from the country of Lebanon through king
Hiram, and known for their skilled workmanship in building. Obviously, the Lord
having taught Nephi in building, both his ship and “many other things,” Nephi
would have felt their construction of the Temple for the Lord was the highest
of their quality and ability in the Land of Promise.
Thus, it is
conceivable that Nephi built a temple like Solomon’s, and given the time
involved, the wealth available, the much smaller size and far less magnificence
in appointment, it could still be considered like unto Solomon’s and to which
the Nephites could have been quite proud.
One of the main
issues is that it would have been made of stone without question, despite “Ana
M.” claiming “and am sure made out of timber” comment, which has no ground to
stand on given what was involved in building a house to the Lord “But the manner of the construction was like
unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine”
(2 Nephi 5:16)
Continuing with this
second part of the meaning of words and statements.
2. “In the Book of Mormon Nephi states that
he built a temple in the land of Nephi after the manner of the temple of Solomon,
but not with precious materials as the ones Solomon used, but it was magnificent
according to Nephi and am sure made out of timber. Obviously it did not have
stairs running to the temple according to Jewish law, but ramps” Ana M.
The Temple of Solomon, according to the
scriptural record, shows neither stairs nor the long Mesopotamia-style ramps
Actually, Nephi said
“it were not built of so man precious things,” not “with precious materials”
as stated in the above comment. As for the overall understanding, we first of
all need to get into the meaning of Nephi’s words, when he wrote: “And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did
construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built
of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land,
wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon's temple. But the manner of
the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship
thereof was exceedingly fine.” (2 Nephi 5:16).
Secondly, we need to
single out four specific sentences:
1. What did Nephi
mean when he said “save it were not built
of so many precious things”?
2. What did Nephi
mean when he said, “for they were not to
be found in the land”?
3. What did Nephi
mean when he said, “But the manner of the
construction was like unto the temple of Solomon”?
4. What did Nephi
mean when he said, “The workmanship
thereof was exceedingly fine”?
The next step is to
consider the overall meaning of the entire statement:
1. “And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it
after the manner of the temple of Solomon…
The frame-work of
Solomon’s Temple consisted of massive stone; the foundations were
laid at a profound depth, and consisted of stones of immense size and great
durability. They were closely mortised into the rock, so as to form a secure
basis for the substantial erection of the sacred edifice; it contained 1453
columns, 2906 pillars, with the stone walls wainscoted with cedar, which was
covered with gold. The boards within the Temple were ornamented with carved
work, skillfully representing cherubim, palm-leaves, and flowers. The ceiling
was supported by beams of cedar-wood, which, with that used in the wainscoting,
was supplied from the forest of Lebanon. The floor was throughout made of
cedar, but boarded over with planks of fir.
Solomon’s temple:
Material: Stone blocks cut
and dressed at the quarry for walls; Stone walls overlaid with cedar panels so
no stone could be seen; Plank walls overlaid with pure gold so no wood could be
seen; Juniper or fir wood plank flooring covered with gold; huge doors made of
olive wood were carved with cherubim and palm trees, overlaid with gold;
Structure: Stone, wood beams,
planks, and panels; cedar wood altar overlaid with gold; inner courtyard built
of three courses of dressed stone and one course of trimmed cedar beams;
Support Structures: 27-foot high pillars
of bronze; wood columns (beams), wood door frames;
Top Left: Inner Altar for incense offering
“Golden Altar”; Top Right: Ark of the Covenant; Bottom: Table of the Showbread
2. “save it were not built of so many precious things…
Precious things in Solomon’s Temple:
18’ high wall-to-wall olive-wood carved cherubim covered with pure gold; ark of
the covenant; ten commandment stones; sacred ritual objects, such as the seven
branched “Menorah” candlestick, inner altar for incense offering and the table
of the showbread; Molten sea, a large laver 18 feet in diameter, resting on
backs of twelve oxen holding 3000 baths; Bronze laver with wheels holding 40
baths;
Additional precious things such as carved
Cherubim, Animals, and very large menhora in lavishly decorated rooms of great
height
Additional buildings: The temple was part
of a splendid series of buildings Solomon constructed in immediate connection
with it, which included Solomon’s own residence, the palace of Pharaoh’s
daughter, the throne-room, the porch of pillars, and the house of the forest of
Lebanon.
3. “for they were not to be found upon the land,
wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon's temple.”
So what items might
not have been found on the Land of Promise where Nephi built his temple?
Certainly there was gold, he had bronze, copper and iron, and stone would
obviously have been available. We do not know what type of wood he had
available to him. Olive trees and cedars of Lebanon are mentioned repeatedly in
the construction of Solomon’s Temple. On the other hand, as for precious
things, he would not have available to him the Ark of the Covenant, temple
treasures, Ten Commandment stones, and other artifacts that were found only in
the temple in Jerusalem. So perhaps he was referring to the precious things of
the temple, and not the construction material. This seems borne out in the next
part of his comment:
4. “But the manner of the construction was like
unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.”
Manner of
Construction: would include the materials and construction methods. And Nephi,
who had spent some time in the Temple at Jerusalem, having been on the grounds,
seen the buildings, and been inside the temple, would have had a good
understanding of the differences.
One of the big
differences between Solomon’s Temple and that of Nephi’s edifice, and one which
brings most critics to a laughing state, and dates back to as early as 1909
with B.H. Roberts, is that of available manpower. Critics have spent much time
discussing the amount of people and length of time Solomon had at his disposal
and almost no workers by comparison for Nephi’s temple.
Consider Solomon’s
Temple:
7 years to build
30,000 laborers
70,000 transporters
80,000 stone hewers
3,300 deputies
(full worker force
183,000)
(See the next post, “Meaning
of Words and Statements Part II: Not of So Many Precious Things PtII, the
second part of this post regarding what statements in the scriptural record
mean, such as “Not of so many precious things”)
Is the Narrow Neck a Mountain
Pass?
In an article posted
April 28, 2013 on “Mesoamerica’s Narrow Neck of Land,” regarding a comment and
reference to James Warr’s so-called
Nicaraguan Land of Promise, and following exchange on the subject between Warr
and a reader, recently (May 2015) on this blog, and another more recent, with the
following three comments were made, which we are posting below and in the
following three posts, along with our responses:
1. “It surprises me that no one seems to
understand that the narrow neck is not necessarily an isthmus but a mountain
pass through the narrow wilderness (mountain range) that runs east and west
separating the land of Nephi from the land of Zarahemla."
Perhaps we should
look at words a little different than we often do. Mesoamericanists, from the
very beginning, were taken with the ruins found in Central America, namely, an
area of Middle America referred to as Mesoamerica today, roughly from about Mexico City
southward into Yucatan, Guatemala, Belize, and western Honduras.
When Joseph Smith was
given this two-volume book set in 1843, about two or three years after John L.
Stephens (accompanied by artist Frederick Catherwood) made his two trips (1839
and 1841) through Central America, which yielded the first solid information on
the culture of the Maya Indians, they were taken with the obvious connection
between the recently published Book of Mormon (1830) containing the Nephi
Nation and the Jaredite kingdom of the Western Hemisphere and these ruins. Latter-day
Saint, from Joseph Smith downward, were taken with the obvious—the apparent
evidence of these Book of Mormon cultures in the Western Hemisphere.
Few looked beyond the obvious.
The first thing that
struck the readers was the isthmus or narrowing of the land around Tehuantepec,
making it a quick “match” in their minds. The fact that the land ran east and
west and not north and south had little impact at first, nor did the fact that this narrowing of the land would not even have been noticeable to people in B.C. times without satellite or aerial photos—they were excited at
the ruins and “obvious” connection. Mesoamerica had to be the Land of Promise!
Hardly anyone has ever looked back from that point to check to see if there
were other locations to compare Mesoamerica against (The ruins of Andean South America would
not be "discovered" for many decades at that time, and few real geographical
scholars of the area truly existed.
For the first time, Church members were
exposed to the ruins of Central America and saw, first hand, actual drawings of
an ancient civilization they considered “Nephite” in the Americas—the race was then on to find Lehi's landing spot, the city of Zarahemla, etc.
Upon further
investigation of Mormon’s geographical insertions into the record, and a more
accurate understanding of the actual lay of the land in Mesoamerica, it
eventually became obvious to many Latter-day saints that there were some
obvious difficulties with this area as the Land of Promise described in the
Book of Mormon. As a result, people like Hugh Nibley and John L. Sorenson, with
the best of intentions of trying to prove the connection between Mesoamerica
and the Book of Mormon, went out of their way to try and make that connection.
However, their very best efforts did little but cloud the issue and in many
cases, turn members off the geographical setting of the scriptural record and
in all too many cases, give unnecessary fodder and ammunition to critics of the
work.
It is not just that
the Isthmus of Tehuantepec does not fit the descriptions of the small or narrow
neck of land, or the narrow pass or passage that runs through it, or the two
seas on either side of it, the narrow neck of land was more important as a
stop-gap, choke-point, or bottleneck as Mormon describes it.
There is no way an isthmus 144-miles across,
with mountains, passes, swamp land, open fields, coastal lands, etc., could be
considered a means of keeping an enemy from moving through it at one of several ingress points into the Land Northward. From a
military view, it would be a nightmare to defend this area
From his military
view, Mormon makes sure we understand that the narrow neck of land was all that
lay between the Lamanites or a defecting Nephite force and the control of the Land Northward, which as their
history unfolded, was the last stand area for the entire Nephite Nation.
Lose that narrow
neck, which connected the Land Southward to the Land Northward (Alma 22:32)…
Lose that narrow pass
or passage that ran within that narrow neck, providing the only egress and
ingress between these two lands (compare the narrow pass of Alma 50:34 and Alma
52:9 that led into the Land Northward and the narrow pass of Mormon 2:29 and
Mormon 3:5 which led into the Land Southward)…
Lose the only means
of getting from the Land Southward to the Land Northward through this narrow
pass or passage with Morianton’s, the king-men, and the Lamanite attempts to
get to the Land Norhtward, and the Enemy would
be on both the south and north of the Nephite Nation, creating a near
impossible defensive position.
Captain Moroni’s run to block Morianton’s bid to
reach the Land Northward through the narrow pass within the narrow neck of land
would have proved fatal to the Nephites had the defector achieved his nefarious
plan
Mormon saw the importance of this at an
early stage, and said, “therefore the Lamanites could have no more possessions
only in the land of Nephi, and the wilderness round about. Now this was wisdom
in the Nephites—as the Lamanites were an enemy to them, they would not suffer
their afflictions on every hand, and also that they might have a country
whither they might flee, according to their desire” (Alma 22:34), which is exactly what Mormon and the Nephite people were forced to do toward the end of the conflict in 350 A.D., when the treaty between them and the Lamanites was enacted (Mormon 2:28).
It was, from the time
of that treaty forward, only a matter of time until the Nephites were wiped
out. What he understood early on and wrote about (Alma 22:34), was that the
Nephites had been wise in their controlling the land north of the narrow strip
of wilderness that separated the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla, and
hemming the Lamanites in the south. From a military viewpoint, once that
advantage was gone (when the Nephites were driven back into the Land Northward
and the treaty was signed), there was no longer an advantage and, unless the
Lord stepped in and provide some miracle for them, it would eventually spell their
doom.
Yet, no matter how
much he cried for their repentance, Mormon was unable to increase their
spirituality and reduce their evil nature, and eventually, their grace was gone
both spirutally and temporally (Mormon 2:15) and the advantage fell to the Lamanites.
It was all about that
narrow neck of land and the narrow passage through it as you wrote. When
theorists go around writing about this distance or that length, about a narrow
neck here and a narrow passage there, they miss the entire point of the narrow
neck of land and its key importance to the future safety and security to the Nephites as a
nation.
To Mormon, “in their
wisdom” meaning two things: 1) The repentance of their sins and their constant
improving spiritually, and
2) Their constant
vigilance against an unrepentant enemy whose only delight seemed to go to war
against the Nephites.
If they lost that
pass and neck of land, they would lose their advantage over the Lamanites. It
was important—very important—that they understood that. Mormon even makes a
comment about this (Alma 22:34).
In a similar concept
during the Vietnam War between Lt. Colonel Harold “Hal” Moore of a U.S. combat
cavalry (helicopter) regiment and the Vietnam Regular Army of Lt. Col. Nguyen
Huu An, the latter commanding 4000 regular combat-ready troops compared to the
tiny U.S. force that totaled only 395 men. In a desperate moment where the U.S.
forces were in danger of being overrun and Moore killed or captured early in
the battle at la Drang Valley—an area about the size of a football field—Moore’s
top aid, Sergeant Major Basil Plumley, who had been with him in World War II
and Korea, turns to Moore to encourage him to take better care of himself and
says, “If you go down, we all go down.” Plumley knew and understood the
importance of Moore’s military genius and command of men, and knew if the
Colonel was killed they did not stand a chance against the overwhelming odds.
The Prophet Mormon as
a military commander all his life, well understood that if the Nephites lost
the advantage of the narrow neck with its narrow passage between the two lands,
they would go down before the Lamanites—as later events proved him
correct.
This narrow neck of
land between the Land Southward and the Land Northward was a critical area, one
that meant the future freedom or captivity (death) of the Nephites. When
theorists write about it as though it held little importance, and merely needed
to meet a few physical conditions that could be inserted where needed, it is
clear they have no understanding of why Mormon wrote about the parts of the
Land of Promise he did, why he described certain physical, geographical
settings as he did, and why their location within the Land of Promise is both
critically important and absolutely necessary to fit exactly as Mormon
described them.
Consequently, we find
in other places additional information about this small or narrow neck, about
the narrow pass or passage, and where they would have been in relationship to
one another.
