There is No Excuse – Part II

 As stated previously, with the number of theorists there are today, and their desire to promote their particular theories, numerous ideas, and beliefs, it should be kept in mind that there is no excuse for using the scriptural record inaccurately. Examples of this are found in the previous post and continue below:

5. Nephites and Gadianton Robbers

“When the Nephites withdrew into that defensive position for protection against the Gadianton robbers...no references are made to either the east or west seas...(but) all indicate the scene of this conflict was in the narrow neck by the west sea” (Hauck, p 37).

The scripture tells us a different story: "Therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together...(in) the land of Zarahemla and the land Bountiful, yea, to the line which was between the land Bountiful and the land of Desolation."  (3 Nephi 3:21,23, emphasis added) .

The “center of our lands” is hardly the west sea.  How anyone gets the west sea out of this scripture is hard to understand.

6. The Land Northward.

“They went into the land northward.  It's true they would have traveled westward to get to that land (Mexico), but it extends much further northward than their own land.  It doesn't say they traveled north, but that they went into the land called the land northward” (Peay, p 108).

 

A NASA photo from space. The Nephites did not have such a view of the Land  of Promise

The Nephites had no aerial maps, satellite photos, or world globes.  It cannot be assumed they knew that the land to their west, if traveled far enough, extended to the north of their land.  To go from Guatelmala as Peay suggests into Mexico is indeed to travel west, and since early cultures often called lands by their direction, as the Nephites obviously did, that land would have been called the land westward.  The scriptures make it quite clear that the land northward was to the north of Zarahemla and Bountiful (Alma 22:29-30).

7. The Land of Desolation.

“One land retained the name Desolation for a great many years.  Until 20 A.D. it was the land north of the land of Bountiful...it retained the name Desolation because it was a harsh and drier land” (Peay, p 109).

The scriptures say nothing about the land of Desolation being an arid, dry or harsh land.  They say simply that the land was called the land of Desolation because of the destruction found there from the previous inhabitants (Helaman 3:5-6).  Nor was this land desolate except for the absence of trees (Helaman 3:7).  Because the land had been denuded of trees by the Jaredites, the Nephites who inhabited the land in the 1st-Century B.C. “did suffer whatsoever tree should spring up upon the face of the land that it should grow up, that in time they might have timber”  (Helaman 3:9).

Helaman tells us "because of the greatness of the destruction of the people who had before inhabited the land it was called desolate" (Helaman 3:6), and as late as 17 A.D. the Nephites still thought of the land northward as having a great curse upon it (3 Nephi 3:24).  In fact, the ancient Semites gave the name Hormah, meaning “Destruction” or “Desolation,” to any scene of defeat, thus, it can hardly be said that this land was called Desolation because of it being arid, dry or harsh as Peay suggests.  This is especially true when this land was also called the land of "many waters" (Helaman 3:4; Mormon 6:4).

There are many such examples that can be given, many of which have been written about in this blog. But the point is, that anyone—scholar, theorist, writer, explorer, professor—should be using the scriptural record to promote their own personal opinions, no matter how accurate they appear to be. If it is not in the record, it cannot be added, altered or changed—in fact not at all, except as secondary support material. If the meaning can be discerned, it should not be discussed as factual without a matching scripture. If an opinion is forthcoming, it should not be expressed as a primary or secondary source.

All of this is important because the scriptures are not for personal interpretation. Nor should they be approached with any idea, belief, opinion, or “fact” that does not agree with the scriptural record, though claimed to be tantamount to it.

Note that the arrows point to additional information and there is no arrow pointing back to the Book of Mormon. This shows that other sources do not change the scriptural record but that the record is paramount

 

Any view, no matter how strongly promoted, can outweigh or over write the words of the scriptural record. Not only were they written by prophets and those directed by the Spirit that lived upon the land, they covered the entire length and width, and time of the Land of Promise, but—as in the case of Mormon—lived and moved upon the entire face of it. Yet, there are professors, scholars and writers who seem to think they know more than Mormon knew, and want to change what he wrote, and the meaning of what he understood. In short, these scholars and professors seem to think their knowledge is greater than Mormon’s, and they feel they have a greater understanding of the events Mormon saw or read about from those who were there during the length of the Nephites in the Land of Promise.

The scriptural record should be approached as the basis for any need in understanding the geographical setting of the Land of Promise no matter what the subject matter, whether it be in the beginning, middle, or the ending of the record.