Once again, turning to Matthew P. Roper’s article, in which he stated: “While the Book of Mormon text may not require a particular reading, we may rightly judge one possibility to be more plausible, more compelling, and more probable than another. He also states: “Of course, knowing what the Book of Mormon says or doesn’t say is only the first step. As with most texts, there are parts of the record that are more ambiguous than others, and these may lend themselves to different possible interpretations, particularly on questions relating to the reconstruction of Book of Mormon geography (Matthew P. Roper, “Plausibility, Probability, and the Cumorah Question,” Religious Educator, vol.10, no.2, BYU Religious Studies Center, 2009).
1. “one possibility to be more plausible, more compelling, and more probable than another.”
This suggest that the reader, believing he is faced with multiple meanings, should determine which is the most logical and then claiming that is the meaning of the word or phrase. However, the problem with this directive is that the reader may not have studied out all the scriptural facts sufficiently. As an example, Jacob states: “we have been driven out of the land of our inheritance; but we have been led to a better land, for the Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea” (2 Nephi 10:20). Now, because having the land of Promise on an island does not fit the criteria of all other Land of Promise depictions and locations, the reader prompted by the theorists involved, try to show that Jacob’s words do not mean what is clearly stated: “We are upon an isle of the sea.” That is a clear and precise statement, but theorists claim that in ancient Hebrew such a phrase meant distant places of the mainland.
On the other hand, when comparing Jacob’s statement with that of Helaman’s: “they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east” (Helaman 3:8, emphasis added). This, of course, is consistent with Jacob’s statement of the Nephites being on an island and therefore, surrounded by water. It also agrees with Mormon’s statement: “and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward” (Alma 22:32). Taken as a whole, and using the writing of the ancients who were there (not modern-day theorists who were not ever there), we can understand Jacob’s meaning and intent: they had traveled over the sea—that is: “The Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea.”
We do not need to look for the most plausible, probable and compelling meaning—the meaning is so clear, it can be understood completely by the ancient statements.
2. “knowing what the Book of Mormon says or doesn’t say is only the first step.”
Contrarily, most of the time, it is the only step—as shown above about Jacob’s statement. In another example, Samuel the Lamanite states: “there shall be many mountains laid low, like unto a valley, and there shall be many places which are now called valleys which shall become mountains, whose height is great” (Helaman 14:23, emphasis added). That is a clear and precise statement, needing no supportive information—and no plausibility, probability or compelling point of view. This, of course, completely eliminates the Heartland and Great Lakes theories, and calls into question the Mesoamerican theory. Consequently, these theorists must find a way to explain away, or limit the height stated by Samuel. However, if support is needed, Nephi’s vision provides it (1 Nephi 12:4).
3. “As with most texts, there are parts of the record that are more ambiguous.”
First of all, the Book of Mormon cannot be compared to, or linked with, “other texts,” since it was specifically written under direct supervision of the Spirit. It seems that only academicians think the scriptural record should be treated like “other texts.
Secondly, the word “ambiguous” literally means “open to more than one interpretation.” It is hard to imagine that any part of the scriptural record is open to more than one meaning, otherwise, we could read it and claim that what we read meant what we want it to mean, not necessarily what the writer meant.
This was the case anciently, leading Peter, who had been speaking of invented stories and myths, specifically saying his claims were neither of these. Scriptures were not "cleverly devised" stories (2 Peter 1:16) or the best guesses of insightful men. These are claims that can only be the product of inspiration by God. This leads Peter to say: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20, emphasis added), and to make that perfectly clear, Peter added: “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21).
4. “Ambiguity may result in different possible interpretations, particularly on questions relating to the reconstruction of Book of Mormon geography.”
It seems clear that man’s interpretation, when it differs from the scriptural record, is in error, for man does not need someone to tell him what the written word means. Nephi made this clear when he said: “For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3, emphasis added).
Additionally, in the revealed preface to the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord made this clear: “Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding” (D&C 1:24, emphasis added). Just about the only thing that the reader needs to insure accuracy and enhance understanding is to have some familiarity with ancient Hebrew customs, a little familiarity with the Hebrew language, and a limited understanding of the period of time involved.
As an example, Roper states in his article, “In what follows I will explain why the final battles of the Jaredites and the Nephites, including those at Cumorah, best make sense as having taken place near a narrow neck of land.” While no one is questioning Roper’s fervor and dedication on the subject, there is absolutely nothing in the scriptural record to link the Narrow Neck of Land with the Hill Cumorah, except that the latter is beyond, or north of the Narrow Neck. How far north is only stated as being “so far northward,” (Alma 22:30). “So far northward” can be just about any distance so long as it is far away and not nearby.
5. Another of Roper’s comments is: “We want to determine which possibility or which interpretation is more plausible or probable. That means we have to prudently weigh various options in order to judge which possible interpretation is the most likely.
There is a comment in the Book of Mormon about there being a Narrow Neck of Land and a Narrow Passage. Presently, theorists in Mesoamerica have four different locations for the pass, and three for the narrow neck. In the Heartland theory there are about the same—which eliminates both of these theories, since in the scriptural record there are just the two—a narrow neck and a narrow pass. The narrow neck connects the two larger land masses (Land Northward and Land Southward) to one another (Alma 22:32), and the narrow pass which leads from one of these lands to the other (Mormon 2:29; 3:5). Consequently, there is one land or neck with a narrow pass through it—making the narrow pass the only way to get through the narrow neck from one land to the other.
There are no other interpretations regarding this plain, clear and precise wordage of Mormon.
No comments:
Post a Comment