Thursday, June 24, 2021

Another Look at the Hill Cumorah – Part III

Again, referring to Matthew P. Roper’s article regarding how to understand what is meant in the scriptural record, states: “We have to prudently weigh various options in order to judge which possible interpretation is the most likely.”

Using that criteria, an evaluation of Roper’s Mesoamerica—not the distances involved, but simply as the Land of Promise—to see how his point of view plays out.

In reading the descriptions of Mormon’s directions of the Land of Promise, particularly those in Alma ch22 where Mormon inserts a lengthy layout of the land and its directions, we find that the layout of the land is in a north/south direction. However, in John L. Sorenson’s layout of the Land of Promise, he places it in an east/west direction and calls it north and south.

Now, according to Roper’s suggestion, which is the most likely? That Mormon knew the direction of the land—or Sorenson? Obviously, it has to be Mormon—no other choice is logical.

Sorenson’s map with our overlay of red and yellow print: Red being the correct directions; Yellow being Sorenson’s directions on his map enhanced for easy reading

 

Looking at this further, Roper, Sorenson and numerous other theorists, especially those at BYU, claim that Mesoamerica is the Land of Promise, negating the directions that Mormon gave us.

So much for dealing with the most likely.

The Mesoamerican theorists, using Sorenson’s argument, claim that Mormon did not know the cardinal directions of north, east, south and west, as we know them today. This led to the so-called “Mormon north,” which has been used to justify the change in directions.

Now, which is most likely, that the Nephites knew a different interpretation of directions, or that Sorenson and other Mesoamerican theorists are flat-out wrong?

The argument that Sorenson used to justify his change of directions, is that the ancient Hebrews only know their directions based on having their back to the sea (Mediterranean Sea), which placed the east before them. However, we find that Nephi knew the cardinal directions accurately, knew the ordinal or intercardinal ones accurately as well as the eight principle winds. How he knew that we are not told, but they had the Liahona at the time Nephi stated: “we traveled for the space of four days, nearly a south-southeast direction, and we did pitch our tents again; and we did call the name of the place Shazer" (1 Nephi 16:13). These directions are verified by the angle of the Red Sea, along which Lehi was traveling.

So, do we believe Sorenson’s so-called “Mormon north,” or  Mormon’s explanations of the land having lived in it all his life?

As Roper said, “we have to prudently weigh various options in order to judge which possible interpretation is the most likely.”

Mormon’s View 2000 years ago vs. Mesoamericanists’ View today

 

So which is most likely? It would seem that Mormon’s description would be more likely than Sorenson’s changing of the cardinal directions and lengthy explanation of it, yet Roper and other Mesoamericanists choose to reject Mormon’s clear and previse compass directions and accept Sorenson’s unrealistic views.

Additionally, Roper said: “It is believed by most contemporary researchers on the Book of Mormon that the narrow neck of land is in southern Mexico.” Having said that, then Roper feels free to use that as a fact and build upon it. Thus, he places the hill Cumorah, the narrow passage, cities, Sidon River and other features within that limited setting, and claim it is the most likely and plausible setting. Sorenson went so far as to say that Mesoamerica was the only setting in the Western Hemisphere that matched the Book of Mormon locations.

Roper states that the Mesoamericanists also claimed that the episode of Morianton’s race to get he and his followers into the Land Northward suggests that the rebel’s intended destination northward was near enough to pose a significant threat to the Nephites within the land of Zarahemla (Alma 50:32).

However, what they fail to understand is that Moroni feared Moianton would get to Bountiful, obtain the land beyond the narrow neck, then convince the Nephites in Bountiful to join with him against the Nephite government. As Mormon stated: “the people who were in the land Bountiful, or rather Moroni, feared that they would hearken to the words of Morianton and unite with his people, and thus he would obtain possession of those parts of the land, which would lay a foundation for serious consequences among the people of Nephi, yea, which consequences would lead to the overthrow of their liberty” (Alma 50:32).

 

The distance between Bountiful and the Narrow Neck us unknown and guessing at it serves no purpose except to mislead the readers

 

Since there is no distance suggested or implied between Bountiful and the Narrow Neck of Land, a conclusion as to overall distance cannot be made. However, it must have been a considerable distance since Morianton and his people had a head start over one of the armies Moroni sent (under the command of Teancum) to run Morianton down.

Now Teancum’s army was sent, according to Mormon, who wrote: “Therefore Moroni sent an army, with their camp, to head the people of Morianton, to stop their flight into the land northward” (Alma 50:33, emphasis added). To better understand this, “with their camp” refers to military camp or bivouac—a semi-permanent facility for the lodging of an army. Camps are erected when a military force travels away from a major installation or fort during training or a major campaign, which forms a large campsite (D. C. Gilman, et al., “Bivouac,” New International Encyclopedia, 1st ed., Dodd, Mead, New York, 1905).

This was not a simple chase of Teancum after Morianton. A distance and time frame would have been extensive when an army is sent “with camp”—meaning they would not be returning any time soon. Such an army has to have food and facilities necessary to spend the time in the field. While the army would have been moving swiftly during the day as long as light held out, they still had the need for essentials, such as food, during the march as well as at night. This suggests that the distance was not limited as Roper claims, but some distance away—at least an overnight movement of the army, and likely more than one night.


No comments:

Post a Comment