More Comments Answered -- Part I

When I answered a slew of more than 120 comments earlier in several posts, I had no idea so many more would be forthcoming. Here are the newest comments and my responses:

Comment #1: “I read this exchange on the internet and wondered what you think of it. Person 1:“I think the argument that the Nephites covered their swords and literally slept "upon" them is the worst possible apologetic argument. Why would anyone do that? Not only are you making your sword inaccessible in a sudden emergency, but you are making your bed so lumpy that nobody could sleep on it.” Person 2: “There are many senses of the word "on," but I'm waiting for someone to provide me with an example in 19th century English of someone using the phrase "slept upon" as meaning "slept near," or the word "upon" referring to "near" in other than a geographical sense.” Kirklon.

Response: The internet is full of uninformed discussions between critics of the Book of Mormon and those who lack knowledge, but try to defend the scriptural text. In this case, you have an interesting idiomatic comment made by Alma saying: “They slept upon their swords,” meaning they were ready to do battle, even during the night. This is much like “They slept with weapons at hand.” When I was in the military commanding a group who were to be ready for an attack at any time and from any quarter, the saying was often “Sleep with your weapons at the ready.” I suppose the phrase is not as important as the meaning. The scripture being discussed by these two is obviously “And it came to pass that we did camp round about the city for many nights; but we did sleep upon our swords, and keep guards, that the Lamanites could not come upon us by night and slay us, which they attempted many times; but as many times as they attempted this their blood was spilt” (Alma 57:9).

Helaman marching with his 2000 stripling warriors against a much larger Lamanite army

 
First of all, we need to understand that Helaman is writing a report of his encounter with the Lamanite armies that he and his band of 2000 stripling warriors had fought. After they were reinforced with another 6060 men, along with supplies, were able to lay siege to the city of Cumeni, then under Lamanite control. The siege began before daylight when the Lamanites were expecting a resupply of provisions. The siege continued for many nights, during which time the Lamanites came out of the city to attack Helaman’s siege forces, and each time the Nephites fended off the attack. Finally, the supply forces arrived to enter the Lamanite-controlled city, but Helaman’s siege army captured them. In this setting, with the Lamanites coming out at night, undoubtedly in surprise attacks, before the resupply provisions arrived, Helaman had his army sleeping with “arms at the ready” to fend off any surprise attack. Thus, “they slept upon their swords.” The trouble with critics is that they fail to consider the entire story being told and look for a single phrase or word and make an issue over it. As for the word “upon,” the 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, lists 20 different meanings of the word, one of which means “near to.”

This definition is born out on several uses of the word “upon” in Alma, such as “the land of Jershon, which also bordered upon the wilderness south” (Alma 31:3) which means next to; “it bordered upon the land which they called Desolation” (Alma 33:30), again next to. “They slept upon their swords” could also mean next to—which is important since garrisons usually either stack their arms at night, or place them in a communal collection where they can be reached easily. Sleeping next to your weapon, or having your weapon at hand, would be a much faster way to be ready to defend against a surprise attack.

Comment #2: “Mormon authors, however, still continue their attempt to establish a link to the Old World by compiling books with pictures of the South American ruins. Some have even gone so far as to photograph the tower at the palace at Palenque, giving the impression it is one of the very towers mentioned in the Book of Mormon. They neglect to mention it was built in the seventh century A.D., 300 years after the Book of Mormon story ends.” Niklaus

Palenque easily ranks with Chichen Itza, Uxmal and Tikal in architecture and majesty. It is perched on the first rise of the Tumbalá mountains, looking out over a vast carpet of green that stretches north to the Gulf of Mexico

Response: While I am not a defender of Mesoamerica as a place where the Book of Mormon Land of Promise took place, it should be noted that Palenque (Bàak' in Modern Maya) was a Maya city-state in southern Mexico that flourished in the 7th century. According to Michael Schrom, in Palenque, the ruins date back to 226 B.C., with its fall around 1123 A.D., which means that some 600 years overlapped the Book of Mormon period.

Comment #3: “Le Plongeon, trying to prove the Indians practiced Masonry, describes a Mayan ruin in which he claims to have found Masonic and Egyptian symbols, including a cornice with rings intended to hang curtains for a Holy of Holies. He also stated that the symbols were comparable to those found in the Old World: “Inscriptions in the Mayan language [are] identical with and [have] the same meaning and value as those carved on the temples of Egypt. . . . These symbols are precisely the same that we find in the temples of Egypt, Chaldea, India and Central America.” On the other hand, a highly skilled Egyptian scholar, Dr. James H. Breasted of the University of Chicago Oriental Institute (now deceased), contradicted him. After Breasted laboriously researched the ruins, Frank H. H. Roberts of the Smithsonian, stated: I was at the Maya city of Chicen Itza in Yucatan in 1932 when Dr. Breasted spent two weeks studying the ruins and inscriptions at that location as well as at several other cities in the area, and at the end of the period he was very emphatic about the total lack of evidence for any Egyptian influence” Luitger.

Left: My wife and I at Chichen Itza recently on a trip through the Yucatan, including (Right) a visit to Tulum on the east coast bordering the Caribbean

Response: I, too, have been to Chicen Itza, which means  “at the mouth of the well of Itza ,” and the site is very impressive, and was elected, along with Machu Picchu in Peru, as one of the “New Seven Wonders of the World” (announced in Lisbon, Portugal, on July 7, 2007, after seven years of publicity and promotion); however, the ruins of the Temple of Kukulcan and the Pyramid of El Castillo, at Chich'en Itza, as does the entire site, dates to about 600 A.D. to 1200 A.D. (according to World Heritage and National Geographic, dated from 750 A.D. to 1200 A.D.), though it is claimed that bout 987 the ruler of the Toltec people of central Mexico came to the “Sacred Cenote” (a large natural well or limestone sink hole) which was holy to the ancient Rain God "Chac," and with his Maya allies made Chichen Itza the most powerful city in the Yucatan. The ruler called himself "Kukulcan" (the Feathered Serpent), and the city lasted until 1221 when it was not abandoned, but fell from power. The point is, this is not Book of Mormon lands, and verifies the claim we have always made that the Book of Mormon Land of Promise was NOT in Mesoamerica. So La Plongeon’s claim and this issue is a mute one.

Comment #4: “Is there any evidence that Jewish worship was practiced by the ancient Indians? The answer is no. But, from the Mormon view, there ought to be. Why? Because the Book of Mormon, claiming to be a record of Jews who left Palestine, states they kept the Law of Moses: And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses. And they were strict in observing the ordinances of God, according to the law of Moses; for they were taught to keep the law of Moses.” Anton.

Response: The Nephites followed the Law of Moses and looked forward to the coming of the Christ. The Lamanites (who you address as Indians) did not. The Nephites were annihilated by the Lamanites in 375 A.D., the Lamanites were not religious, were barbarous nomads whose blood lust for vengeance and killing wiped out the Nephites to the last man (except for Moroni). Why would you think to find any religious, let alone Jewish, worship among them? If you are going to criticize the Book, why not read it first to make sure of your disagreements? At least your questions would not appear so juvenile.

(See the next post, “More Comments Answered -- Part II,” for more answers to comments submitted in this blog)