Have You Ever Wondered Why? – Part II

Continuing from the last post regarding the directions of the Land of Promise, why Mormon used the terms “north,” “northward,” “south,” and “southward,” and the purpose of confusing the simple issue as to the direction of East to the Hebrew or Jew.  
    Once again, Sorenson writes (p38) that Hebrews identified the direction of east (where the sun rises) by putting their back to the sea (Mediterranean Sea), and only in this way would they identify east. Since the Hebrews well understood "east" as all Easteners do whose very religion is centered in the "east," this idea of having to have a back to the sea is downright foolish.
    What Sorenson evidently does not know, or has conveniently forgotten, is that to the Hebrew and later Jew, “east” was more than a direction, more than a place where the sun rose, more than the direction the Tabernacle and the Temple faced. It was the direction for Telfillah. It is the direction for the “enhancement of the mitzvah” that is, the divine commandment, or “beautification of the mitzvah,” beyond the formal demands of the law.
    The “east” holds a very specific reference to the Hebrew and is found throughout the Old Testament as well as in Christ’s time. After all, when the Messiah came, he was to come from the east. The east was where God dwelled. The star of God shone in the east. The east is the source of blessings and divine salvation. Jews were to face east to the site of the Temple during prayer. Every Jew at all times knew where east was located from wherever he was—it was not just a direction it was an entire way of life and religious thinking. In fact, it was customary in traditional Jewish homes to mark the wall in the direction of mizrah (east) to facilitate proper prayer.

For this purpose, people used artistic wall plaques (left) inscribed with the word mizrah and scriptural passages like "From the rising (mi-mizrah) of the sun unto the going down thereof, the Lord's name is to be praised" (Psalms113:3). Traditional Kabbalistic (Mekubbal) inscriptions, or pictures of holy locations, were placed on east walls, and generally in rooms where people prayed, such as the living room or bedrooms.
    Like magnets attracted to metal, Jews, no matter where in the world they found themselves, turn their hearts and prayers, to one direction: Jerusalem. “If I forget Jerusalem, then let my right hand forget its own strength” (Psalms 137:5).
    Sorenson’s claim that the Jews needed to place their backs to the sea in order to know which direction was east is a naive understanding of Middle Eastern directions and direction finding.

Left: If the Jews needed to place their backs to the sea in order to know the direction of east, as Sorenson claims, then Right: how confusing it would have been to land in Mesoamerica as Sorenson claims and be faced with trying to determine east by putting their back to the surrounding sea--as shown, you could come up with 10 different directions for East
    To the Hebrew and Jew, the east was (and is) where the soul united with its Creator, the life-line of all humanity. The Jews face east because they are facing their land, their unity, their destiny. They face Jerusalem because they are facing their past, their present and their future. Unlike many modern thinking people and societies, to the Jews, the world faces east towards its destiny! To think that the Nephites, who lived the Law of Moses until the Savior appeared to them after the crucifixion did not know which way was East no matter where they might have been would to accuse them of forgetting their own beings--both their religion and their God!
    There is another point Sorenson has conveniently forgotten since it allows him to cloud the issue even more and that is the direction of the rising sun. While we say loosely the “sun rises in the east,” the fact of the matter is that the sun rises in due east only two days out of the year: when passing (rising at) the celestial equator. Half-way along its march to the winter and summer solstices (when the sun reaches its furthest point away from the equator, it passes the mid-way (equinox) when the length of the day and night are equal, generally around March 21 and September 22. Every other day of the year, as the Sun marches toward the Winter and Summer Solstices it rises somewhere along a north-south range in the east—obviously, along a curve path, moving northward and then returning in the Northern Hemisphere and southward and returning in the Southern Hemisphere. Thus, in midsummer, the sun sets close to the northwest, and in midwinter it sets close to the southwest—and that difference between sunrise directions in midsummer and midwinter is an exact 47-degrees. As a result, "east" would be considered along that 47º arc, with "due east" in the exact middle.
    Of course, the exact bearing of sunrise and sunset in any area is determined by the latitude and the time of year. The greater the latitude and the closer to one of the solstices, the further from east and west the sun rises and sets. If you take it to the extreme as Sorenson does in his book (p38), then in the Arctic Circle in June the sun rises so far north of east and sets so far north of west that these points actually overlap–in other words the sun doesn’t rise or set for up to many months. The point is, and why it is unimportant and merely clouding the issue, is that the Land of Promise and the Nephties were not in the arctic, or anywhere else where the sun does not rise in the east.
    Obviously, in the areas of suggested locations of Lehi’s Land of Promise, the changes are not that great, and can be understood within one full season (one year) following the sun from solstice to solstice. To think that the Nephites did not know the direction of the compass, the direction of the sunrises and sunsets (when their planting and harvesting—their very lives—depended on it) is simply foolhardy. It is one of the reasons why ancient civilizations built observatories, so they could track the season, pinpoint the Solstices and Equinox and know when to plant and harvest.
    If they did not learn that in the first year, they would not have survived a second year. There were no corner McDonald’s or grocery stores in 600 B.C.

Lehi and his sons, armed with the Liahona and a past knowledge of seasons, planting and harvesting, would have had to know and understand where they were and the direction of the sun in their lives at all times
    It is unrealistic to think that Lehi and his sons, who would have known about farming, sun location, equinoxes, and seasons, armed with the Liahona, did not know the direction they traveled, thus the direction of their Land of Promise upon landing. After all, their entire survival of planting and harvesting depended upon this knowledge and their discussing it when they arrived as they “did begin to till the earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our seeds into the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem. And it came to pass that they did grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were blessed in abundance” (1 Nephi 18:24). This would not have occurred if they did not know where the Sun was, in which direction east was by following the Sun and pinpoing the all important planting and harvesting times. That they knew east is shown in Nephi's comment after separating from his brothers and settling the area they called Nephi: "And we did observe to keep the judgments, and the statutes, and the commandments of the Lord in all things according ot the law of Moses" (2  Nephi 5:10)--one of those things would have been to orient themselves toward the "east" in all things, including the building of the temple like Solomons, as well as knowing the sun's movement for planting and harvesting in this new area (2 Nephi 5:11).
    Considering the fact that Lehi, Nephi, Sam, Zoram, and their wives would have know all about the sun, seasons, planting and harvesting, to attribute to them a totally different way of thinking about directions when their entire history at Jerusalem would have been the opposite, is also unrealistic. 
    Another point of clouding the issue is in Sorenson’s comment (p 39) in which he writes: “In fact, we don’t know what Laman, Lenuel, Sam, and Nephi did call their directions, since the first terms for directions appear in the Book of Mormon only hundreds of years after the first landing (Mosiah 7:3; 9:14). It should be noted that 7:3 is not accurate, but Mosiah 27:6 is especially of interest, since all four cardinal directions are mentioned; direction of north is found in Mosiah 10:8; 11:13, with Mosiah 7:31and 12:6 mention an east wind in a general sense. From all of this, one should conclude that A) the Nephites early on knew and understood these cardinal directions, and B) used them, writing them into the record when the occassion arose. Whether they were used more often and Mormon did not include them in his abridgement we do not know.
    The clouding the issue comes here in the form of trying to say Nephi did not know the cardinal directions and used other terms and the Book of Mormon does not show any directions prior to Mosiah (200 B.C.) The problem is that Sorenson should know, at least all the rest of us know, that Nephi made directions very clear when he accurately stated the third-level of directions as they traveled down the coast of the Red Sea. He stated, quite clearly, “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).

This third level of directions involves the 16 points of the compass (1=south; 2=southeast; 3=south southeast, which is the 8 winds of SSE). That is a pretty specific and complex understanding of the compass—hardly something Nephi would have come up with off the top of his head. Most likely it came from the Liahona, which suggests that Nephi had that Liahona showing him compass directions all along. If not, then it can only tell us that Nephi was very knowledgeable of in-depth compass directions. Either way, when he arrived in the Land of Promise, would have set up a system of directions that would have been known to all down through the centuries.

Have You Ever Wondered Why? – Part I

Anyone who reads the Book of Mormon is generally struck with the directions given and the imagery those directions create. Of course, not every reader obtains the same map image, however, most have held to a north-south directional system. Even so, it is interesting that the words “north” or “south,” appear only a total of seven times, while the words “land northward” and “land southward,” appear a total of 47 times. However, the word “westward” is never used at all, and the word “eastward” is used only twice, both in Ether and both describing the eastern portion of the Land Northward: “and came over by the place where the Nephites were destroyed, and from thence eastward, and came to a place which was called Ablom” (Ether 9:3); and “Shiz did pursue Coriantumr eastward, even to the borders by the seashore” (Ether 14:26).
    These words, as Joseph Smith translated them in 1829, would most closely reflect the English used in his region (New England) at the time as found in Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language (Webster, himself, being a New Englander):

The width on a compass of “northward” would be between the two small arrows (red line) on the compass, which is from within the eight half-winds (or 16 points) northwest by north (Maestro-Tramontana), to northeast by north (Greco-Tramontana)—which is a 45º angle from 337 ½º to 22 1/2º
    Defined  by definition:
    Northward – (adjective or adverb) being or toward the north, or nearer to the north than to the east and west points
    Southward – (adverb) towards the south, as to go southward; however, as a noun, it means “The southern regions or countries”
    Eastward – (adverb) toward the east; in the direction of east
    Thus as a direction, the suffix ward means toward a point, i.e., northward, toward the north; southward, toward the south.
    Consequently, when Mormon gave us the directions of the Land of Promise, and Joseph Smith translated into English the Reformed Egyptian characters Mormon used, the Spirit acknowledged the correctness of Joseph’s use of northward, southward, and eastward. So when we look at Mormon’s descriptive language, we would read:
    Alma 22:30: “And it bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it being so far toward the north that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed”
    Alma 22:30: “Thus the land toward the north was called Desolation, and the land toward the south was called Bountiful”
    Alma 22:31: “Bountiful, it being the wilderness which is filled with all manner of wild animals of every kind, a part of which had come from the land toward the north for food”
    Alma 22:32: “there being a small neck of land between the land toward the north and the land toward the south
    Alma 22:33: “had hemmed in the Lamanites on the south, that thereby they should have no more possession on the north, that they might not overrun the land toward the north”
    In those five short verses, which Mormon inserted into Alma’s record so his future reader could better understand the description of the land, he uses north/south or “toward the north/south” eight times within a 97-word statement about directions.

The Land of Promise running north and south as Mormon so clearly describes in Alma 22:27-34). The "Land North" and the "Land South," are added to the map from Alma 46:17; Helaman 6:10; and 3 Nephi 1:17, for completeness in the use of all north-south land terms
    It is hard to imagine how anyone could read these directions, understanding the meaning of the words, and not recognize that this land ran vertically, from the south (Land of Nephi) to the north (Land of Desolation).
    Yet, John L. Sorenson insists on creating a totally different meaning for Mormon’s directions, changing everything to actually read east and west as his model of Mesoamerica as the Land of Promise so clearly shows. And, too, other Mesoamericanists, like Brant A. Gardner, while not using Sorenson's skewed map, or Nephite North, uses a different approach that still skews the directions to fit Mesoamerica (see a later post series on Gardner's approach).

Sorenson’s map (Map 5) showing his Land of Promise running east and west; however, Mormon’s descriptions do not include east or eastward, or west or westward, which are the directions Sorenson’s map shows
    This brings us back to the question originally asked. Why did Mormon use the terms northward and southward? In all of our contemporary dictionaries the term northward literally means: (adjective) “in a northerly direction,” (adverb) “toward the north,” (noun) “the direction or region to the north.”
    This means that the term “northward” is an inescapable reference to the Land Northward being or laying to the north, or that the Land of Desolation is an area being or laying to the north. Thus, any reference using northward means Mormon was referring to a land, region or area toward the north—literally “to the north.” Even Sorenson’s first four maps in his book (Map 1, 2, 3, and 4), between pages six (6) and twenty-five (25), show a north-south alignment as he introduced the terminology from the scriptural record, as opposed to the horizontal map he later uses (Map 5) of Mesoameria (above).

Two of the first four maps Sorenson uses to illustrate his Land of Promise. Note that the Land Southward is in the South and the Land Northward is in the North in an accurate portrayal of Mormon’s description; however, when he changes to Map 5 (above) of Mesoamerica, the Land Northward is in the West and the Land Southward is in the East
    Following these first four maps and some twenty pages of explanation of a north-south arrangement, Sorenson then, in his book, introduces his east-west map (Map 5 above) to change everything he had written and begins to introduce in the next eighteen pages redefining the Hebrew meaning of north, south, east and west.
    It is interesting that on page 36, opposite his introduction of a now east-west map for the Land of Promise, Sorenson writes: “More detail is not necessary at this point, The general agreement between Mesoamerica and Book of Mormon geography can be grasped directly by studying map 5 carefully.” Yet, the point is obvious, that nothing checks out between Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon Land of Promise descriptions. The difference in direction alone is almost 90º off kilter, with the Land Northward to the west of the narrow neck of land, and the Land Southward to the east of the narrow neck. How can anyone, without having their tongue deeply implanted in cheek make a claim that “more detail is not necessary” when they change the entire alignment of the map the Mormon described?
    In Sorenson’s attempt to redefine the word “north” in the Hebrew language, he states (p38) that “We in the European tradition say that “east” is “where the sun comes up,” but in the arctic, the sun unconcernedly rises in the south,” which is little more than trying to cloud the issue, since in Mesoamerica, at the Gulf of Tehuantepec (Sorenson’s narrow neck of land), the sun does rise in the south, i.e., it rises along a compass heading of 90º, which is about as due east as one can get.

His next point is that the Hebrews understood east by putting their back to the sea (Mediterranean Sea) and literally facing east , which is where the sun rose in the Middle East. He goes on to claim that people of Labrador use a term meaning “seaward” that actually is east, but across the Labrador Sea, people in Greenland are looking “west” and using the same word for “seaward.” Thus more confusion is introduced as though where the sea was located; however, any maritime country or people know the sea is located in different directions from cardinal points—or may even be completely surrounded, such as in Polynesia as Sorenson points out (p38).
(See the next post, “Have You Ever Wondered Why? – Part II,” for more of Sorenson’s discrepancy on changing the cardinal points of Mormon’s descriptions and confusing the issue of cardinal directions of the Land of Promise)

Mysterious Sumhuram

The way theorists have written about Sumhuram, an ancient city on the inlet of Khor Rori to the east of Salalah, one might think it was a mysterious city of antiquity. Perhaps because the Queen of Sheba is said to have had a palace there, or that it was the beginning of the famed Frankincense Trail that swept across Arabia, or perhaps it was because of the Rub’ al Khali desert. Whatever, the reason, the facts do not support any mystery.

Aerial view of the Salalah Plain; Bottom: Looking out to sea across the Khor Rori inlet from the ancient ruins of Sumhuram. The entrance to the inlet is now covered by a sand bar, but anciently ships from all over sailed into the inlet from the Sea of Arabia beginning around the 1^st century B.C.
    Khor Rori lies on the eastern end of the bowl-shaped plain of Salalah, and along the eastern shore of the inlet of Khor Rori sits the ancient ruins of Sumhuram, perhaps one of the most important pre-Islamic settlements in the entire Dhofar region since it sits on the end (or beginning) of the Frankincense production region.
    The first phase of the settlement, which was established behind a monumental gate to the city where great quantities of iron and bronze objects have been discovered, first by James Theodore Bent in the late 19^th century A.D., which has later been excavated by the American Foundation for the Study of Man in the early 1950s and by the Italian Mission to Oman since 1994. First believed to have been established as early as the late 4^th century B.C. and continued on through the 4^th century A.D., more modern dating has placed the beginning closer to the end of the 3^rd century B.C., and continuing only through the 1^st century A.D.
    It is believed that Khor Rori is the ancient frankincense exporting port of Moscha Limen mentioned in this region in the 1^st century maritime guide Periplus Maris Erythraei. It is believed to have been founded as an outpost for the kingdom of Hadramawt in modern Yemen once the Nabataeans started exporting frankincense from the Hymraite ports.

The port of Sumhuram (Smhrm - "His Name is Great") was founded on royal initiative and settled by Hadrami emigrants at the end of the 1st century B.C. Rock inscriptions (left) record that it was established by LL'ad Yalut to control the trade in Dhofar incense. It is identified as the Moscha of classical geographical texts, where Indian seamen who had brought cotton cloth, corn, and oil to exchange for incense, overwintered, waiting for the favorable monsoon winds to take them home.
    The inlet itself is a substantial port that has seen Greek, Roman, Indian, and other early traders dating back to the 1^st century
    Though contrary to archaeological findings of the site, some theorists claim that Khor Rori and Sumhuran were occupied during the time Lehi reached his Bountiful, thus making a stronger case for a different site a few miles to the west of Salalah; however everything yet uncovered in the Sumhuran/KhorRori area suggests it was not actually settled or occupied until 400 B.C. at the very earliest, and not officially as an actual settlement until the 1^st century B.C., as noted by the ancient Greek seafarer’s manual, Periplus of the Erythrean [Red] Sea, (naming the Khor Rori inlet at Salalah as Moscha) and describing navigation and trading opportunities in the area for mariners who might be sailing in that area—obviously, if it had been occupied for some 600 years or more by then, there would have been no need for his detailed instructions as to how to reach this inlet and where it was exactly located.
    Actually, and as typically the case, there is no mystery when Khor Rori was first established. The problem lies in this date not matching the dates of other sites favored by some theorists, such as Khor Karfot. However, despite writing meant to discredit Khor Rori, there are trees in the area of Wadi Dirbat just above Khor Rori, the greenery and “bountiful” conditions Nephi writes about, including natural beehives in caves that have been harvested there for millennia, and the other conditions we have written about in these pages over the past.
    In addition, there are two cliffs at the inlet to Khor Rori in the photo below (red arrows) where, despite some theorist’s claim to there being no such place, would have been perfect locations to throw Nephi into the sea. After all, any old mountain would not do, it had to be a cliff facing that dropped directly into the sea for the body to reach, as Nephi recorded it, “when I had spoken these words, they were angry with me, and were desirous to throw me into the depths of the sea” (1 Nephi 17:48, emphasis mine).

Top: (Yellow Arrow) The Khor Rori inlet where fresh water flows down from the Wadi Dirbat, past the (White Arrow) ancient ruins of Sumhuran and to the Sea of Arabia (foreground). Red Arrows: Two 90 to100-feet high cliffs on either side of the inlet from which Laman and Lemuel could have thrown Nephi into the sea; Bottom: The ancient ruins of Sumhuran. The two cliffs can be seen in the background
    The port of Khor Rori and the city of Sumhuram were the hub of the trading settlement on this coast during the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D., during the height of Rome’s far flung shipping empire that brought those of the Mediterranean into the Sea of Arabia in search for frankincense and other trade goods, creating short-lived wealth and fast-growing cities and ports that did not last long.

The powerful and wealthy city of Sumhuram was secure for three centuries behind its huge walls as it overlooked the port of Khor Rori, which drew thousands of traders from the region in search of goods not found in their own lands
    Sumhuram’s close links with the powerful Shabwa state made it a very rich town. At this time it was a small, strongly fortified city covering about an acre. However, the process of disintegration began in the first half of the 3rd century A.D., a process that was completed by the end of the century, when the site was reclaimed by the sea and by natural vegetation.
    While Shisr was already playing a major role in the Iron Age as an important outpost providing traders with water before they entered the desert of the Rub al-Khali, the foundation of the fortified port of Khor Rori/Sumhuram by LL'ad Yalut, king of the Hadhramawt, took place at the end of the 1st century B.C. in the context of growing sea trade between the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.
    After the decline of Khor Rori during the first half of the 3rd century A.D., the site of al-Balid can be considered to be that of the port which took over the main role in sea trade up to the Late Islamic period In the region of Dhofar the natural setting of Wadi Andoor, Wadi Hogar, and Wadi Dawkah represents the most significant area where frankincense trees grow.
    There is nothing mysterious about this area and the ruins found there. For a short time, about 300 years at most, Sumhuram played an important role in the international trade of the time; however, as different states rose and fell, the trade routes changed and where one city had been wealthy and powerful, it lost its maritime appeal and fell into oblivion. This, then affected the interior sites, like Shisir to the north of Khor Rori, not rediscovered until the 19^th century.

Top: Khor Rori today, a quiet, undisturbed, and peaceful inlet when Lehi arrived and where camels roam today and few people visit; Bottom: (Red Arrow) Khor Rori as the hub of ancient travel and trade from Rome (upper left) to India (lower right) and Africa (lower left)—it is easy to see why this port was the center of focus during the 1^st Century B.C. and onward until Rome and other such empires lost their power and disappeared into history
    Khor Rori is a peaceful small inlet today, showing no signs of its once robust and busy connections with the world around it. The trees above Khor Rori where Nephi found his wood, the ore at the base of the mountains to the east from which he made his tools, the ways upon which his ship had been built and then slid into the inlet, are all gone now—only ruins remain. Were it not for the Book of Mormon recording this brief moment in history, we would know little if anything about the important role this area played in providing an area from which Lehi set sail for his Land of Promise.

Does the Scriptural Record Really Matter?

Most of us approach the scriptural record as though it is an accurate portrayal of the information provided by ancient Prophets and abridged by the last of their line under the direct influence of the Spirit, such as written by Mormon “And I do this for a wise purpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord which is in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord knoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he worketh in me to do according to his will” (Words of Mormon 1:7). He also wrote: “And I did even as the Lord commanded me…And these things doth the Spirit manifest unto me; therefore I write unto you all. And for this cause I write unto you, that ye may know that ye must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ” (Mormon 3:16, 20).

Those who have written in the scriptural record include (Lto R) Lehi, Nephi, Joseph Smith and Mormon; all prophets of great standing with the Lord, entrusted to write His words for His purposes in the sacred record
    In the case of Nephi, son of Lehi, in obvious frustration, said, “And now I, Nephi, cannot say more; the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance, and I am left to mourn because of the unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men; for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be” (2 Nephi 34:7)

Now, along comes John L. Sorenson, accepted by most people today as the guru (popular expert) of Book of Mormon geography, the Land of Promise, and the location of the Nephite nation and the events described in the scriptural record. And what does this sage, mentor, teacher, expert, tell us? That Mormon’s entire compass directions of the land he lived on, traveled, fought over, and defended are all wrong—by as much as 90º, turning west into north, south into east, and completely re-aligning the Land of Promise along an east-west land, rather than the north-south land of Mormon’s descriptions.
    He designs a Land of Promise, claimed to be based on the scriptural record, where:
1. The Land Northward is in the West, situated to the west of the Land Southward;
2. The Land Southward is in the East, situated to the east of the Land Northward;
3. The East Sea is to the north and the West Sea is to the south;
4. The hill Cumorah is about 400 miles from the Land of Many Waters;
5. The Land of Bountiful is to the west of the Land of Zarahemla;
6. The Land of Zarahemla is to the west of the Land of Nephi;
7. The Land of Desolation is to the east of the narrow neck of land, and to the east of the Land of Bountiful;
    Every single one of these major land placements is inaccurate according to the scriptural record. 

It is like drawing a map and placing Denver to the South of Salt Lake City, Reno to the North of Salt Lake, Idaho to the east of Utah and Colorado to the South and Arizona to the West; Montana and Wyoming to the South; California to the North. No amount of justification for such placements is going to change the fact, that Denver does not lie to the north of Salt Lake City—and no amount of justification about “Mormon’s North” is going to change the fact that in the scriptural record Mormon tells us these lands were to the north and Sorenson places them to the west.
    In one fell swoop of the pen, Sorenson changes the geographical alignment of the entire Land of Promise from what the scriptural record so clearly states to what he thinks it should be. So the earlier question is asked again.
    “Does the scriptural record really matter?” 
    Are the statements and descriptions placed in the scriptural record to help us better understand the location of areas the Nephites occupied really necessary? Should a writer about the Book of Mormon lands wander all over the place and make outlandish claims about placements that are so obviously inaccurate and contrary to Mormon’s descriptions? Should one, out of courtesy to those who wrote “by the spirit” for our enlightenment and understanding, restrain himself from straying from the truth, then masking it in the appearance of truth?
    What is it about the scriptural record that allows so many so-called scholars to write about this land that Mormon so eloquently and completely described to rearrange it to fit their models and beliefs?

Would that be acceptable if it were done to the doctrines of the scriptural record? What if someone at BYU, in charge of a field of endeavor, with the full support of the Church, Deseret Book, FARMS, and packed classrooms were to decide to change one of the major tenets of the gospel of the Church? Let’s say he decided to completely realign the structure of the Priesthood? Once again, the question is raised:
    “Does the scriptural record really matter?” 
    At one point (p41) Sorenson writes: “Besides, it turns out that Mesoamerican territory is just plain awkward to label directionally in terms of the European compass because it angles across our neat grid."
     While this would be true if we were dealing with four cardinal points of the compass (north, south, east and west), but we are not. We have, at least in Nephi’s time, 16-points of the compass, which basically would cover any map angle you have. As an example, Nephi says that after the marriages, they resumed their travels in the wilderness, “And it came to pass that 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, emphasis mine).

South-southeast conjures up a rather clear image of “an angle across a neat grid.” Since Nephi could make that clear, why would we think that Mormon would have any difficulty with a land laying along that same angle grid? The answer is obviously that he would not have—Sorenson is merely trying to cloud the issue in his attempt to show us that his model of Mesoamerica is difficult to describe and align with the scriptural record. This, in most circles, would disqualify the model from the get-go! But not Mesoamericanists--they simply change the meaning of the scriptural record to fit their model.
    In fact, Sorenson states: that Mesoamerica is “more east than south,” but in truth, Mesoamerica runs directly east and west. It is Central America, when we include all of Mexico to the north and all of Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Ria to the South, that we get an angle. But the claims of Mesoamericanists do not include Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama—only a portion of Honduras. Nor do they claim all of Mexico, just from about Mexico City southward, including the Yucatan.
    So from western Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemale, Belize, Yucatan and southern Mexico, called Middle or Meso America, you have a land that runs mostly east and west—and at the exact area of their narrow neck, runs directly east and west.
    Sorenson takes almost an entire page of his book (p41) to try and confuse the reader in the direction of Mesoamerica, talking about Cuba being literally north of Oaxaca, Mexico; however, the fact is that from the narrow neck of land, due north is eastern Texas, not Cuba, which would literally be almost due (cardinal) east.
    The point is, when one starts playing with words, one can usually bend them to make any point desired. However, when dealing with reality (get a map in front of you and read page 41) you will find that confusion is being introduced, not clarification. The fact is, Mesoamerica runs east and west in a general sense and it is obvious that it is the case—and when you plug into the map Sorenson’s Book of Mormon sites where he places them, you are still dealing with an east-west alignment, contrary to the clear understanding that Mormon provides us in his writing.
    Evidently, to Mesoamericanists, the scriptural record does not matter!

Are Laman and Lemuel Misunderstood? – Part III

Continuing from the previous post regarding the rebellion of Laman and Lemuel and what caused it. We concluded with a focus on Laman and Lemuel and their opposite attitudes from Nephi and Sam. 

Laman and Lemuel, despite being the oldest, found it difficult to focus on spiritual matters, preferring the ease of life to the labors of the Lord
    This focus made it hard for them to appreciate spiritual manifestations, even when those manifestations led them through the “more fertile parts of the wilderness” (1 Nephi 16:16). President James E. Faust taught, “As the scales of worldliness are taken from our eyes, we see more clearly who we are and what our responsibilities are concerning our divine destiny.” Laman and Lemuel were never able to see clearly through the lens of worldliness through which they had chosen to view life. Laman and Lemuel’s worldliness decreased the possibility that they would focus on the things of the Spirit. This kept them from viewing Christ as a necessary part of their lives.
    In connection with Laman and Lemuel’s pride and worldly focus, they were slothful and easily discouraged when faced with difficult tasks. This further complicated any effort to build a relationship with God. When they were sent back to get the plates, they complained that it was a “hard thing” Lehi required of them (1 Nephi 3:5). When their first attempt failed, they wanted to give up and leave (1 Nephi 3:14). When Laman and Lemuel didn’t understand Lehi’s words, they would argue among themselves and even ask Nephi about their meaning; but they refused to exercise the faith and effort necessary to obtain an answer from the Lord (1 Nephi 15:8–9). Their lament that “the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us” was not an indictment of God but of their own lack of effort.
    This sounds a great deal like our modern-day theorists who say, in effect, the Lord didn’t make it known to me that the Land of Promise ran north and south; therefore, I can argue an east-west alignment and still be within the confines of the scriptural record.
    When their bows lost their springs and Nephi’s bow broke, Laman and Lemuel murmured instead of working to find a solution (1 Nephi 16:20). When Nephi was commanded to build a ship, they “were desirous that they might not labor” (1 Nephi 17:18).
    Laman and Lemuel showed a consistent pattern of slothfulness in starting tasks commanded by the Lord and were easily discouraged when those tasks proved difficult. One scholar refers to part of this problem as the “wilderness factor.” He questions Laman and Lemuel’s willingness to adjust to the hardships of the wilderness. “As the hardships of their journey increased, perhaps Laman and Lemuel began to lose faith in the entire venture and became defensive when Lehi and Nephi continued to attribute their journeyings to the Lord’s will.”
    These examples clearly illustrate that it is impossible to sustain a relationship with God without the requisite effort and sacrifice. We should keep in mind that it is not possible for us to enjoy optional obedience to the law of God, or place our own limits on the law of sacrifice, or mitigate the charges of righteous conduct connected with the law of the gospel. We cannot be willing to sacrifice only that which is convenient to part with, and then expect a reward. To try to do so is no different than accepting part of the scriptural record that agrees with our point of view and beliefs, and reject those parts that do not fit into our way of thinking.
    As an example, we cannot reject Jacob’s statement in the scriptural record of being on an island because we do not agree with it, while accepting those statements with which we do agree. Mormon’s writing is not a cafeteria list in which we can accept those parts we like and reject those parts that do no fit into our way of thinking.

It should also be pointed out that when Laman and Lemuel refused to obey the Lord’s commandments, they were inevitably censured by Lehi, Nephi, or an angel of the Lord. Because of the hardness of their hearts, they typically refused to accept correction and chose to be offended. This further stunted their spiritual growth and reduced the possibility of a meaningful relationship with the Lord. Nephi did not even have to rebuke them to make them angry. He simply had to be an example of obedience. “Just as Abel’s righteousness aroused Cain’s hatred, so Nephi’s righteousness aroused the hatred of Laman and Lemuel.”
    In fact, Laman and Lemuel’s most serious outbursts and wickedness flowed from uncontrolled anger at being rebuked. When Nephi rebuked them for their desire to return to Jerusalem, they became so angry that they bound him and “sought to take away [Nephi’s] life.” (1 Nephi 7:16). When Nephi rebuked them for their unwillingness to help build the ship, “they were angry with me [Nephi], and were desirous to throw me into the depths of the sea” (1 Nephi 17:48). When Nephi rebuked them for their rudeness on the boat, Laman and Lemuel once again were angry with Nephi and tied him up (see 1 Nephi 18:10–11). Ultimately, their anger at Nephi’s rebukes led them to seek his life. Each of their murderous attempts came because of uncontrolled anger at being rebuked.
    As with each of the weaknesses reviewed previously, Laman and Lemuel’s anger was not only a symptom of but also a reason for their failure to come unto Christ and be saved. In addition to the obvious wickedness engendered by their anger, the anger created a wedge between Laman, Lemuel, and those who were best situated to help them. It turned their hearts cold and hard, closed to the promptings of parents, siblings, and the Holy Spirit.

Laman and Lemuel, so caught up in the pleasures of the world, argued pitifully and complained bitterly about being called upon to sacrifice for their own benefit. Completely rejecting that Jerusalem would fall and its occupants being driven into captivity, Laman complains: “Behold, these many years we have suffered in the wilderness, which time we might have enjoyed our possessions and the land of our inheritance; yea, and we might have been happy” (1 Nephi 17:21), yet had they actually known, that even as they spoke these words, Jersualem was under siege by the Babylonians who would eventually break down the walls, put many of its inhabitants to the sword, and force thousands of others into exile to serve as slaves where they would not be enjoying life.
    But such is so often the case when the arrogance of individuals who think they know things begin to reject the knowledge of God and the wisdom of those who serve him and provide us with the information we are intended to have. Think of Laman, complaining bitterly about their condition, knowing nothing, though have been told but rejected the information, that those in Jerusalem had suffered an ignoble defeat at the hands of Nebuchadneezer, says: “And thou art like unto our father, led away by the foolish imaginations of his heart; yea, he hath led us out of the land of Jerusalem, and we have wandered in the wilderness for these many years; and our women have toiled, being big with child; and they have borne children in the wilderness and suffered all things, save it were death; and it would have been better that they had died before they came out of Jerusalem than to have suffered these afflictions” (1 Nephi 17:20).
    How foolish are the vain complaints of those who know so little, yet are offered so much. Laman and Lemuel were offered the world, an honored life in a land choice above all other lands, yet rejected this while thinking they knew more than the Lord, more than their father, more than their younger brother.
    Again, this seems so reminiscent of our modern theorists who, given all the knowledge in the scriptural record and information of their own world to match it, choose to ignore the words of the ancients about their land and seek for places that do not match Mormon’s descriptions because they know more than the Lord, more than the ancient prophets, more than those who lived upon the land.

Are Laman and Lemuel Misunderstood? – Part II

Continuing from the previous post regarding the rebellion of Laman and Lemuel and what caused it. After commenting on the faith of Nephi and his explicit trust in the Lord, we come to Laman and Lemuel, who seem at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Even though the previous account of choices Laman and Lemuel made in carrying out their responsibilities, looking only at the positive results of their efforts, which is basically stated correctly, they in no way came close to those shown by Nephi and, though silent on the issue, his brother, Sam seems to have been of Nephi’s caliber. His father said of him, “after he had made an end of speaking unto them, he spake unto Sam, saying: Blessed art thou, and thy seed; for thou shall inherit the land like unto thy brother Nephi. And thy seed shall be numbered with his seed; and thou shalt be even like unto thy brother, and thy seed like unto his seed; and thou shalt be blessed in all thy days” (2 Nephi 4:11).
    How different the story of Lehi’s family in the land of Promise would have been had Laman and Lemuel possessed the nature of Sam. While faith seems to have come to Lehi’s two younger sons more readily, it was not something Laman and Lemuel possessed most of the time—in fact, it is the sad story of both their lives and tragic stories.
    What was it that drove the faithfulness of Nephi and Sam and did not drive Laman and Lemuel? Both were born to the same parents, both raised by the same parents, both were more or less taught the same, and belonged to the same Hebrew and Jewish heritage. Of course, this is the question every parent with a wayward child or two asks himself. And while the exact answers regarding Laman and Lemuel might not apply in specifics to every wayward son or daughter, certainly the concept behind Laman and Lemuel’s actions can be applied in many if not most cases.
    Certainly, Laman and Lemuel lacked spiritual maturity. From the beginning they failed to comprehend the purpose of leaving their home and wealth—continually rejecting the idea that the Lord would destroy Jerusalem because of its wickedness. They also had an obvious flaw of thinking they knew more than those the Lord called to lead and direct. Like many of the spiritually immature in Jeruslaem, Laman and Lemuel thought they knew more: “we know that the people who were in the land of Jerusalem were a righteous people; for they kept the statutes and judgments of the Lord, and all his commandments, according to the law of Moses; wherefore, we know that they are a righteous people; and our father hath judged them, and hath led us away because we would hearken unto his words; yea, and our brother is like unto him” (1 Nephi 17:22.
    That sounds a lot like our modern day theorists who claim they know more about what the ancients meant than what they actually said. After all, when these modern theorists change the direction of the lands, the placement of one land to another, and utilize their own judgments superior to those Nephite prophets who wrote about their lands, we find a level of spiritual immaturity and a strong belief in their own knowledge  above that of those called to speak upon matters.

In understanding this spiritual immaturity, and knowing the potential for greatness these older brothers had, their failure to be obedient and accept the Lord’s direction and their leader’s counsels becomes even more tragic and pitiful.
    Laman’s biggest concern regarding the interaction between himself and his brothers, was that he held the birthright and to him was to flow the leadership of the Family at some point in time. He should have had the respect of his brothers, should have been in charge of the affairs flowing downward from their father, and the one to stand up and take charge when such was needed.
    Yet, despite that being his desire, he seemed to think that he needed to put out little or no effort at all in the carrying out of such responsibilities. After all, when Lehi received a vision from the Lord to send his sons back to Jerusalem to obtain the Brass Plates of Laban, the patriarch did not go to some other member of the family to make the assignment. He went to his oldest son, his first born, the one he should be able to count on to carry out the wishes of the Lord and his as patriarch.
    It was not that the events of the record caused Laman to gripe and complain—it was his nature to gripe and complain, irrespective of the cause. He griped and complained when Lehi obeyed the Lord and took his family into the wilderness, even after Lehi took the time “making known until him the things which the Lord had manifested…yet he would not hearken unto [the Lord’s] words” (1 Nephi 2:18).
    As Lehi put it, when speaking to Nephi after being turned down by Laman: “And now, behold thy brothers murmur, saying it is a hard thing which I have required of them; but behold I have not required it of them, but it is a commandment of the Lord” (1 Nephi 3:5).
    Four personal weaknesses become obvious as we study the lives of Laman and Lemuel: pride, worldliness, slothfulness, and anger. These weaknesses inhibited them from developing a living faith in Christ and laid the groundwork for their complete rejection of God. Each weakness was not only a symptom of but also a reason for their failure to come unto Christ and be saved.
    Ultimately, it was Laman and Lemuel’s failure to develop living faith in Christ that prevented them from overcoming their personal weaknesses and led to their spiritual destruction. The Savior promises to help us overcome our weaknesses and redeem us from our fallen state (see Ether 12:27). Laman and Lemuel’s failure to develop faith in Christ left them to battle their weakness by themselves, ultimately a losing cause.
    Their refusal to “grow up in Christ” left them to become “for themselves” (3 Nephi 1:29). Therefore, even though Laman and Lemuel did many good things, when left to their own merits, they failed to become what the Savior desired them to become. To better understand how this happened, it is helpful to examine the relationship between these four weaknesses and Laman and Lemuel’s lack of faith in Christ.
    Pride was a fundamental problem for Laman and Lemuel. It has been stated that: “The great weakness of Laman was his pride. He was a man with a strong personality, capable of impressing others as a leader. He, no doubt, had as much education as his younger brothers.
He was skilled in oratory, and he had the legal advantage of being the firstborn. But with all these qualifications he was weak, because he lacked humility.” Laman and Lemuel’s pride is evident throughout the scriptural record. They always claimed their right to rule over their siblings (1 Nephi 16:37; 2 Nephi 5:3).

They continually chafed under the directing hand of Lehi. Even with a belief in God, they regularly questioned His guidance and commandments, especially when it came through their brother or their father (1 Nephi 2:11; 3:31; 7:6; 17:18). Ultimately, however, pride precluded the possibility of their spiritual growth. It made the requisite dose of humility unobtainable: “Humility is a concept that plays an essential role in the origins of spirituality. Naturally, there are other important considerations, but the scriptures are clear and consistent on two points regarding humility and spirituality. First, the absence of humility virtually precludes the development of spirituality. And, second, the presence of humility is essential for spiritual growth.”
    Likewise, a materialistic orientation kept Laman and Lemuel’s focus earthbound. One author stated that “Laman can be viewed as a prototype of the ‘natural man.’” From their first complaint at having to leave their possessions behind (1 Nephi 2:11) to their lament on the seashore (1 Nephi 17:21), Laman and Lemuel continually focused on worldly things.
(See the next post, “Are Laman and Lemuel Misunderstood? – Part III,” for more information on the plight of these two older sons of Lehi and the fate they chose for themselves rather than the one Lehi blessed them to receive and the Lord desired for them to have)