Here are more comments that we have received from readers of
this website blog:
Comment #1: “You say
Pachacamac is the currant name of the city of Zarahemla. Do you have any idea
where the name came from and what it actually means?” Brenda W.
The Ancient
city of Pachacamac about one half mile inland from the Pacific Ocean, and about 20
miles south of Lima, Peru. Note the yellow arrows pointing to the old, ancient
wall around the city
Response: The name is actually Pacha Kamaq, literally “Earth Maker,” or
more accurately, anciently meant “God dwelt here.” This is very close to saying
“the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators dwelt here,” and would be most appropriate
when comparing it to the scriptural record of it being the home of both
Mosiahs, Benjamin, Alma, Helaman, and other prophets and seers. It also fits
the fact that while Zarahemla was surrounded by a wall, upon which Samuel the
Lamanite preached to the Nephites: “many
heard the words of Samuel the Lamanite, which he spake upon the walls of the
city” (Helaman 16:1). Pachacamac was at one time completely surrounded by a
wall (Blair Niles, A Journey in Time
Peruvian Pageant, Bobbs-Merrill, N.Y., 1937, p62, quoting Miguel Estete,
the royal veedor or inspector, who accompanied
Hernando Pizzaro on this expedition, wrote: “It must be a very old place, for there are numerous fallen edifices. It
has been surrounded by a wall, though now most of it is fallen.” His
account was also included by secretary Xerez in his own (William Hickling
Prescott, History of the Conquest of Peru,
1522-1548, 1998, p500). Cieza de Leon visited here, and Ephraim George Squier
wrote that the tenement houses in the ancient city had one-story apartments
with no narrow, dark passages, but all opening on a spacious central court, and
the temple had several terraces which led to the summit, which still showed
rose-red and chrome-yellow stucco.
Comment #2: “I
wonder how many times the Book of Mormon contains the words "And now I
would speak (prophesy, write. etc.) somewhat concerning..." I do not believe this phrase appears even
once in the Bible” Steve W.
Response: Nor should it. The Book of
Mormon is an abridgement by Mormon of the record written by several early
prophets. In his abridgement, he condenses a much larger volume to a small work
by comparison, and continually inserts his own wordage in the process. “And now
I would speak somewhat concerning...” is used as a seque from one thought or
event to another, much like "and it came to pass," and has nothing to do with Biblical terminology or writing, but
was used by the abridger, Mormon, who lived from 310 A.D. to 385 A.D.
Comment #3: “Wow! I read an article by
Joe V. Andersen in the Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum in which he
critiqued Wayne N. May’s This Land: Zarahemla and the Nephite Nation, 2002. He
shows where it is not possible for the Book of Mormon to have occurred in the
United States, but only in Mesoamerica. How does that set with your South
America?” Terrance J.
Response: In that article, Andersen
also states: “If one is going to attempt to
identify geographical locations of the Book of Mormon, the fundamental premise
must be that it must conform precisely to what the Book of Mormon states and
cannot go against specific directions, spatial requirements, elevations and
consistent textual descriptions stated therein. One must not pick and
choose some locations or facts to the exclusions of others.”
Until Andersen
brings his Mesoamerican model into a north-south alignment as Mormon so vividly
describes in Alma 22:27-34, and elsewhere, as Andersen himself says “any model must conform precisely to what the
Book of Mormon states and cannot go against specific directions,” then he
might have something of interest to say on the matter. As for May’s model, he
also is so far afield that one of the co-writers of the first volume, Edwin G.
Goble, has recanted both his writing and apologizes for doing so, and recants
his support of May’s artifacts and information.
Comment #4: “You seem to keep skirting the problem that modern DNA does not show a
connection between the American Indian and the Book of Mormon” Laura Z.
Response: It is interesting that despite
all the problems showing up with DNA, including the recent evidence that
mitochondrial DNA is inaccurate, people still harp on it. Actually, we have written quite a bit about the
American Indian and DNA—among other articles, see “In Changing the Lamanite
Skin Color, Parts I and II, and also “DNA and the American Indian, Parts I and
II, Sunday, February 27, 2013 thru March 2, 2013. On the other hand, it might
also be said that in regard to the nature and identity of Lehi’s people,
Latter-day Saints have held a variety of opinions and expressed several
interpretations historically, but whether some Native Americans, or many Native
Americans, or even all Native Americans have Lehi as an ancestor, it does not
follow that they did not also have others over the centuries since the demise of the
Nephites in 385 A.D.
It should also be understand that in in
all tribal genetic testing, information is expressed in terms of probability or
a chance of something. It should also be kept in mind that Genetic Ancestry Testing looks at more historical
connections; however, it cannot reflect the whole of a person’s ancestry but
instead traces ancestry through specific variations in genes. In addition,
since mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) testing runs through the mother, if the mother
was not on the ancestral line between Lehi and the present testee, then there
would be no apparent connection. In this case, an entirely different DNA test
is required. Also, not all American Indian DNA shows up regardless of the test.
As an example, many
men of eastern U.S. tribes, such as Cherokee, have a European haplogroup like
R1b. That’s because there was a lot of intermingling with the early settlers
from Europe. And lastly it should also be noted that with mtDNA testing other than Full Sequence the time frame
of common ancestors may be too far back to provide useful information. So good
luck with your DNA approach and test.
Comment #5:
“We were having a discussion in our class recently about the ball or
compass. I mentioned your excellent articles about how it probably worked. Tell
me, do you happen to know what the word “liahona” stands for or means?”
Kimberly B.
Response: Keep
in mind that the Hebrews created new words by combining existing words in
accordance with the circumstances in which the need for that new word arose,
taking into account the purpose of the object that received the word. Thus, the word “yah” is God Jehovah.
“Liyah” means the possessive, and “ona” means “whither” or direction. Thus,
“the direction (director) of the Lord, or literally “to the YWHW is the
whither” (To God is the direction). The term Liahona, then, is composed
of three words: the first part of the name “li” indicates the possession of
something; “iaho” exhibits the fingerprints of the tetragrammaton YHWH, i.e.,
the Lord; and “ona” is an adverb that means direction or motion to a certain
place. This has, evidently, led to the name Liana, which means “To God is the guidance. More precisely, the
Hebrew name Liana means “My God has answered (me)”; It is composed of
three Hebrew elements: “El” meaning God; “ana” meaning “answered,” and
the “Yud” located after EL, indicating first person possession. If spelled Layin, it means “he answered
me.”
Comment #6: “Why do you think Hugh Nibley kept talking
about other people in the Land of Promise? I read where he said, ‘It is nowhere
said or implied that even the Jaredites were the first to come here, any more
than it is said or implied that they were the first or only people to be led
from the tower.’ What do you think?” Zack D.
We do know from the Book
of Mormon and from Isaiah that other groups of the house of Israel were led
away (1 Nephi 19:10; 21:1; 2 Nephi 10:20-21), but we do not know from where or
when or to where or when. If any were led away from the Tower by the hand of the Lord rather than wandered away, we have no knowledge and it is
fruitless to speculate on such. However, in regard to the Land of Promise, we
have been given a pretty good understanding of who, how and when, people were led there
through the prophecies, visions, and promises given to Lehi and later to Nephi.
Since there is no suggestion, comment, reference or thoughts given us on this,
it seems likely none arrived or they would have been mentioned in their vision as the ones we know about were, including the gentiles of Europe, etc.
One of the problems is
that Nibley, like others who champion Mesoamerica as the Land of Promise, are
convinced from sectarian writing and "scientific evidence,” there were other
people in Mesoamerica before, during and after, the Jaredites and Nephites, so
Nibley and others feel the need to provide room for them to have been in their
models of the Land of Promise. Personally, I do not think so, but that is
beside the point. The issue at hand is, none were ever mentioned, suggested or
eluded to, thus it is of no consequence to us in understanding the Jaredites,
Nephites, Mulekites or Lamanites to start thinking others were around.
When the Lord told the
Brother of Jared that he would lead them "into a land which is choice
above all the lands of the earth" (Ether 1:42), and then tells him that he
would be going forth into the wilderness, "yea into that quarter of the
land where never had man been" (Ether
2:15 emphasis added), that seems rather specific and unquestionable that the Jaredites would have been the first into the Western Hemisphere, the fourth quarter of the Earth, the land that had been held in reserve after the Flood (Ether 13:2), and should have,
I believe, been understood even to Nibley.
Comment #7: “I ran across a map by someone named
Rosenvall regarding Baja California and found it fascinating. I think you’ve
missed a bet by not looking closer to home than South America. Why don’t you
study that area?” Lennie J.
Response: This map was
developed by Lynn and David Rosenvall. While we have written much in this blog
about Baja, and why it could not possibly be the Land of Promise based upon
Mormon’s numerous descriptions, let me ask you just one question. If you can
intelligently answer it for me, I will consider your point of view. When the
Nephites were faced with annihilation at Cumorah in 385 A.D., why did they
choose to stand and fight rather than keep retreating northward as they had
been doing for nearly 40 years? They certainly had plenty of room in Baja to
continue retreating northward right into the area of the southwest United
States. Why on earth would they stop and fight a battle against an overwhelming
larger force they knew they could not defeat? Rosenvall’s so-called “narrow
neck of land” is only about 300 miles from what is now the U.S. Mexico border
and beyond that straight north would have been today’s area of San Diego and
Southern California—if you have ever been in Baja, especially in what Rosenvall
considers his Land Northward, you would quickly grasp the benefit of continuing
north into what is now California. So why did the Nephites stop and fight an anihilating battle?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment