As indicated in the last post, theorists often misunderstand the meaning of words in the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon and consequently, draw the wrong conclusions.
Though not completely accurate, the theorist now ventures into ground he clearly does not understand, when he continues: “Keeping this information in mind, it becomes evident that the word ‘wilderness,’ as it is used in the Book of Mormon, usually refers to mountainous areas and lands that are higher in elevation. The Lamanites (at least the more “idle part”) preferred to live in the mountains, hunting beasts for food, whereas the Nephites preferred to live in the lowlands and raise their own animals.”
First of all, the word “wilderness” has a specific meaning, one that is clearly listed in the 1828 dictionary as “a desert; a tract of land or region uncultivated and uninhabited by human beings, whether a forest or a wide barren plain. In the United States, it is applied only to a forest. In Scripture, it is applied frequently to the deserts of Arabia.”
The funny thing is,
“mountains” are not even mentioned as a location for a wilderness, though when
we look at the main meaning, “a tract of land or region uncultivated and
uninhabited by human beings” we can obviously place a “wilderness” within a
mountainous region.
Not finished with his speculation, he goes on to add, “Alma 22:27 talks about a thin ‘strip of wilderness’ that divides Nephite and Lamanite lands. This can be confusing because what I think Mormon is saying is that the strip of wilderness was not just the boundary. The Lamanites actually lived on the strip of wilderness.”
However, had he read Webster’s definition of “wilderness” as used in 1828 in the vicinity of where Joseph Smith grew up, this theorist would likely not have ventured an opinion on a matter in which he had no knowledge and is not mentioned in the scriptural record about Lamanites living within the narrow strip of wilderness. Whether or not they did is not known, but highly unlikely since it 1) was a wilderness, that is an unoccupied tract of land; 2) it was a dividing line, a border, and 3) the Lamanites were mainly occupying the Land of Nephi, which Mormon clearly states that “between” the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla was the narrow strip of land.
And since the narrow strip “divided” the Lamanites and
Nephites, it stands to reason no one lived within that narrow strip.
The theorists goes on to say, “The U-shaped boundary described above is the mountain path that the Lamanites would follow. Instead of venturing down into the valley, they would go around using the surrounding highlands. The head of the river Sidon was at the bottom of the U.”
Now, overall in this simple and short description of this part of the Land of Promise, several errors are made:
1. It becomes evident that the word ‘wilderness,’ as it is used in the Book of Mormon, usually refers to mountainous areas.
This is far from the truth. In several cases the word “wilderness” in the Book of Mormon refer to hills (leaving Jerusalem), a wadi (traveling south toward the Red Sea), a seashore (traveling along the Red Sea), a valley (where Lehi camped beside the river he named Laman), and a very large sand desert (the Rub’ al Khali in Saudi Arabia), all of which Nephi described as a wilderness where they spent eight years (1 Nephi 17:4);
2. Regarding the East and West wilderness being a mountain area.
The East and West wildernesses is along the seashore, not a mountain area, and when Moroni drove out the Lamanites in the area and pushed them back into their own lands, he had people from Zarahemla move into the wilderness and build a city, the city of Moroni, which was along the seashore (Alma 50:9);
3. We can deduce that Sidon is surrounded by a strip of mountains on the east, west, and south.
There is no reason to believe that the river Sidon has mountains on three sides. We do not know the configuration of the narrow strip of wilderness, though it would obviously be at a higher elevation than the Land of Zarahemla. The city of Nephi itself, is in a high mountain valley, with mountains on at least two sides (north and east) since Ammon camped on the mountain top (or hill top) that overlooked the city below Mosiah 7:5, 6);
4. The Lamanites (at least the more “idle part”) preferred to live in the mountains, hunting beasts for food.”
We don’t know that the Lamanites preferred to live in the mountains. That they lived in the Land of Nephi is obvious, but that may have been since the Nephites vacated that land, it had houses, buildings, crops, etc., which may have been why the Lamanites chose to live there. The narrow strip of wilderness may have had breaks, canyons, cliffs, etc., which kept the Lamanites from moving further northward. We simply do not know this.
5. The Nephites preferred to live in the lowlands and raise their own animals.
The Nephites lived in the mountains in the city of Nephi and
the Land of Nephi for some 350 years and must have preferred it to other lands.
When they arrived in Zarahemla, there were several families that chose to go
back to the Land of Nephi, obviously preferring to live there among Lamanites
than at the lower elevation of Zarahemla, and remained for three generations
and no doubt would have stayed longer had the Lamanites not driven them out. It
is of little value and adds nothing to our store of acquired knowledge for
theorists to speculate so far on matters that are simply unknown.
6. The land and city of Nephi are located in upland territory (2 Nephi 5:7-8, Alma 22:28). The city of Zarahemla is at an intermediate elevation, "up" from the eastern lowland coast (Alma 22:31) but "down" from the land of Nephi (Alma 22:3; Helaman 2:17).
The Land of Zarahemla and the city of Zarahemla are not in an upland or intermediate elevation. The scripture quoted (Alma 22:31) for this has to do with the Jaredites landing, not the Nephites, and there is no Helaman 2:17, perhaps he meant Helaman 1:15. The Land of Zarahemla, for the most part, is near sea level, with the city of Zarahemla on the seashore where the Mulekites landed and remained until Mosiah found them (Omni 1:16).
7. The land of Bountiful itself seems to be quite narrow since (Alma 22:31-33) describes it mostly as a zone that runs across the narrow neck of land.
The Land of Bountiful
occupied the northern lands of the Land Southward and was separated from the
Land of Desolation (the Land Northward) by a small (or narrow) neck of land.
There is no mention of a narrow strip or zone of land there. In fact, there was
a piece of land that is unnamed which occupied an area between the Land of
Zarahemla and the Land of Bountiful (3 Nephi 3:23; Helaman 4:5).
It is not that reading or understanding the writing of the Book of Mormon is difficult, it just requires exact reading and not jumping to conclusions or skipping parts, or reading like a novel but pondering the scriptures.
(See the next post, “On the Language of Joseph Smith – Part III,” for more information on how theorists and others writing or talking about the Book of Mormon often mistake the meaning of a word or phrase which either clouds the issue, changes its meaning, or draws inaccurate conclusions)
Not finished with his speculation, he goes on to add, “Alma 22:27 talks about a thin ‘strip of wilderness’ that divides Nephite and Lamanite lands. This can be confusing because what I think Mormon is saying is that the strip of wilderness was not just the boundary. The Lamanites actually lived on the strip of wilderness.”
However, had he read Webster’s definition of “wilderness” as used in 1828 in the vicinity of where Joseph Smith grew up, this theorist would likely not have ventured an opinion on a matter in which he had no knowledge and is not mentioned in the scriptural record about Lamanites living within the narrow strip of wilderness. Whether or not they did is not known, but highly unlikely since it 1) was a wilderness, that is an unoccupied tract of land; 2) it was a dividing line, a border, and 3) the Lamanites were mainly occupying the Land of Nephi, which Mormon clearly states that “between” the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla was the narrow strip of land.
The Narrow
Strip of Wilderness that stretched from the East Sea to the West Sea, dividing
the Land of Zarahemla from the Land of Nephi (Alma 22:27)
The theorists goes on to say, “The U-shaped boundary described above is the mountain path that the Lamanites would follow. Instead of venturing down into the valley, they would go around using the surrounding highlands. The head of the river Sidon was at the bottom of the U.”
Now, overall in this simple and short description of this part of the Land of Promise, several errors are made:
1. It becomes evident that the word ‘wilderness,’ as it is used in the Book of Mormon, usually refers to mountainous areas.
This is far from the truth. In several cases the word “wilderness” in the Book of Mormon refer to hills (leaving Jerusalem), a wadi (traveling south toward the Red Sea), a seashore (traveling along the Red Sea), a valley (where Lehi camped beside the river he named Laman), and a very large sand desert (the Rub’ al Khali in Saudi Arabia), all of which Nephi described as a wilderness where they spent eight years (1 Nephi 17:4);
2. Regarding the East and West wilderness being a mountain area.
The East and West wildernesses is along the seashore, not a mountain area, and when Moroni drove out the Lamanites in the area and pushed them back into their own lands, he had people from Zarahemla move into the wilderness and build a city, the city of Moroni, which was along the seashore (Alma 50:9);
3. We can deduce that Sidon is surrounded by a strip of mountains on the east, west, and south.
There is no reason to believe that the river Sidon has mountains on three sides. We do not know the configuration of the narrow strip of wilderness, though it would obviously be at a higher elevation than the Land of Zarahemla. The city of Nephi itself, is in a high mountain valley, with mountains on at least two sides (north and east) since Ammon camped on the mountain top (or hill top) that overlooked the city below Mosiah 7:5, 6);
4. The Lamanites (at least the more “idle part”) preferred to live in the mountains, hunting beasts for food.”
We don’t know that the Lamanites preferred to live in the mountains. That they lived in the Land of Nephi is obvious, but that may have been since the Nephites vacated that land, it had houses, buildings, crops, etc., which may have been why the Lamanites chose to live there. The narrow strip of wilderness may have had breaks, canyons, cliffs, etc., which kept the Lamanites from moving further northward. We simply do not know this.
5. The Nephites preferred to live in the lowlands and raise their own animals.
The city of
Nephi was in a mountain valley, surrounded by mountains, or at least mountains
on the north as indicated in Mosiah 7:5-6, and undoubtedly in the east as well
6. The land and city of Nephi are located in upland territory (2 Nephi 5:7-8, Alma 22:28). The city of Zarahemla is at an intermediate elevation, "up" from the eastern lowland coast (Alma 22:31) but "down" from the land of Nephi (Alma 22:3; Helaman 2:17).
The Land of Zarahemla and the city of Zarahemla are not in an upland or intermediate elevation. The scripture quoted (Alma 22:31) for this has to do with the Jaredites landing, not the Nephites, and there is no Helaman 2:17, perhaps he meant Helaman 1:15. The Land of Zarahemla, for the most part, is near sea level, with the city of Zarahemla on the seashore where the Mulekites landed and remained until Mosiah found them (Omni 1:16).
7. The land of Bountiful itself seems to be quite narrow since (Alma 22:31-33) describes it mostly as a zone that runs across the narrow neck of land.
The Land of Bountiful was separated from the
Land of Zarahemla by an unnamed land
It is not that reading or understanding the writing of the Book of Mormon is difficult, it just requires exact reading and not jumping to conclusions or skipping parts, or reading like a novel but pondering the scriptures.
(See the next post, “On the Language of Joseph Smith – Part III,” for more information on how theorists and others writing or talking about the Book of Mormon often mistake the meaning of a word or phrase which either clouds the issue, changes its meaning, or draws inaccurate conclusions)
No comments:
Post a Comment