Why Do Theorists Have Such a Problem Relying on and Following the Scriptural Record? – Part III

Continued from the previous post, regarding the various theories that simply are not consistent with the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon, and how important it is to not defend an idea or belief simply because it seems to make sense, but to compare it with the only criteria that has precedence over all others—the scriptural record.
    Theorists, writers, Book of Mormon scholars, and theorists simply have to understand, as was pointed out in the earlier posts on this subject, that Church leaders have made it quite clear from Joseph Smith to today, that where there is a difference between any person’s comments (and they mean anyone), the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon takes precedence!

Consequently, we have simply got to stop thinking we know more than the ancient prophets like Mormon, Nephi, Jacob and Moroni regarding the descriptive information they gave us about the Land of Promise. We also have to stop thinking that a Church leader’s opinions, beliefs or ideas, are more accurate than the scriptural record—unless speaking officially for the Church. We also have to stop thinking that we know more about what Mormon wrote than he did, and feel we have to clarify their intent away from the clear and simple meaning they described.
    Thus, when Mormon tells us the direction of the land was north to south, we cannot insist, for any reason, that it was east and west! When Nephi and Mormon gives us specific and well-understood cardinal directions, we cannot claim those directions meant something else! When Nephi and Mormon describes the Land of Promise having mountains that collapsed and others rose up to heights which were great, we cannot decide the Land of Promise was located where there are no mountains or where mountains have never been! When Jacob tells us the Land of Promise was an island, we cannot claim he meant a mainland, shore or continent, or anything else! 
    When Mormon makes it clear the head of the Sidon River was south of the Land of Zarahemla, we cannot claim he meant something else or that the source of the Sidon River was not south of the Land of Zarahemla in the narrow strip of land! When no land to the east of the Sea East is ever mentioned or implied, we cannot glibly claim an entire land mass was to the east of a river claimed to be a east sea! When Mormon tells us the Land of Bountiful was to the north of the Land of Zarahemla, we cannot claim it was to the east! Or when Moroni tells us all the Jaredites were all killed except for Ether, and that no mention that the Jaredites ever had contact with either the Mulekits, Nephite or Lamanites, we cannot claim that there was great intermingling between the Jaredites and others in the Land of Promise!
    In addition, it should be noted that when theorists start naming this or that body of water a directional sea, they do not always place that sea in the proper direction. Take the map shown in an earlier post on this subject, where the Sea South is shown north of the Land of Bountiful, the Land of Zarahemla, and distantly north of the Land of Nephi, and level with the hill Cumorah.

The (red circle) South Sea is basically located north of the Land Southward; the (green circle) location of all four seas would be so named only to that areas within the circle, basically on the map the Land of Desolation and the white area, which is Canada in modern terms

While that would be correct were the information given us by the Jaredite kingdom, since that is locate at the southern limit of the map’s Land Northward. However, this was a Nephite named sea, as given to us regarding the Nephites in Mormon’s abridgement (Helaman 3:8). Thus, the name is not consistent with Nephite (or any ancient) naming of the land.
    The reason for this is simple. The Nephites (and Hebrews before them) named areas with directional names far more than they did by a given name. The names always derived from the physical location or direction the sea or land was in relationship to the center of the land involved. Thus, the Dead Sea was earlier known as the East Sea; the Sea of Galilee was earlier known as the North Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea was known as the West Sea, as these areas related to one another and within the land of Palestine (or the Hebrew lands).
    This means, that if Lake Erie was really the South Sea, that Helaman 3:8 would mean that the Nephites had spread throughout basically the singular area between these lakes, i.e., the Land of Desolation, and the unnamed white land within the circle. Since that was obviously not what Helaman meant, then we have to discount Lake Erie as the Sea South.
    In addition, under the Nephite and ancient way of using direction names for locations, all three seas, Lake Michigan (Sea West North), Lake Huron (Sea North) an Lake Ontario (Sea East), would have carried a “Sea North” name, such as the Sea Northwest, the Sea North, and the Sea Northeast, or something similar.
    It is simply not helpful, and generally extremely misleading and always detrimental to just start naming areas because they fit one’s model. Words and names within the scriptural record have meaning—and the ancient meanings of the Hebrew language were generally quite specific. A “South Sea” or “Sea South” had a specific meaning, as is found in Helaman usage of the name. It was the Sea to the South of the lands being described or lived within. In this case, the Nephites. To have named a sea in the center or north part of the land by “taman” תֵּימָן meaning “south” and “southward,” would have been out of character and inconsistent since it was not south in the land. The same is also said of “tsaphon” צָפוֹן meaning “north” and “northward,” names that would notapply to anything but that which was north or northward of the center of the land. Likewise, “mizrah” מִזְרָח meaning “east” and “eastward,” and “maarab” or “maarabah,” מַעֲרָב meaning “west” or “westward.”
    These were directional words, with specific meanings that can be traced to specific cardinal points of the compass (unlike what John L. Sorenson has claimed in his directional descriptions). And to make sure these words have specific meanings, we should keep in mind that the word for east (“mizrah”) meaning “the rising of the sun,” and the meaning of the word west (“maarab” or “maarabah,”) is “the setting of the sun.” Thus, the terms are strictly consistent with their understood direction meaning the same as they are today despite what Sorenson tried to claim.

Such mistakes are constantly being made by theorists, who are more interested in placements that can be fitted within their land models, than the accuracy of either the words they choose or the scriptural meanings they try to manipulate.
    It might also be stated that a singular sea was not given two names, as theorists do, such as calling the Mediterranean Sea the Sea East along the Levant, and the Sea West near Spain, since this would be confusing to those who traveled the entire sea; or the Persian Sea North, near Mesopotamia, and the Persian Sea South near current Qatar or the United Arab Emirates. In such cases, seas were given actual names, like the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Sea (or today Persian Gulf). Thus, a North Sea would be in the north of the overall land; a South Sea would be in the south of the overall land; a Central Sea in the middle of the land; a complete sea, like the Dead Sea (East Sea) or the Mediterranean Sea (West Sea) were given singular names, not portions of the sea given multiple directional names, which would have been confusing in their day and age.
    This led to the naming of a sea that flowed into other seas the appellation of “Many Waters,” rather than a directional name. Thus we see Lehi naming the sea “Irreantum,” which is “many waters,” because the Sea of Arabia flows into the Indian Ocean, which flows into the Southern Ocean, which flows into the Pacific Ocean, etc. The same is said of the Jaredite name “Ripliancum,” meaning “greater than all” seas, since it was the largest sea they knew from where they were located.
    A critical point in this cascade of "seas" is one's point of reference, whether it be in the land northward or southward. Perspective and point of reference are important issues, such as the south wilderness to the Nephites was that narrow strip of land between the Land of Zarahemla and the Land of Nephi. To the Nephites, it would have been the north wilderness, but we have no Lamanite records to verify what they called it, if anything.
    Thus, we cannot put a named “directional” sea in a location where its direction is not verified by normal directional understanding.
(See the next post, “Why Do Theorists Have Such a Problem Relying and Following the Scriptural Record? – Part IV,” regarding the various theories that simply are not consistent with the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon)