skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Continuing with the
article about one theorists’ defense of changing the scriptural record for it
to match his own viewpoint of the Land of Promise.
Comment: “The directional trend of the two lands and
the neck was generally north-south. The east sea (six references) and the west
sea (twelve references) were the primary bodies of water that bounded this
promised land.”
Response: First of
all, the number of times these seas are mentioned or referred to as Sea West, Sea East, east seashore, etc., including Alma, Helaman, Mormno and Ether, would
be 24 for the East Sea and 20 for the West Sea, including their seashores, etc.
Secondly, there is no question that the land lay to the north and south, since
Mormon makes this quite clear in his various directions, beginning in the last
part of Alma, chapter 22.
However, one cannot
say the primary bodies of water that bounded this land were just the east and
west seas, since a north and south sea are also described, and the fact that,
at least in Jacob’s time, the Land of Promise was an island (2 Nephi 10:20), a
scripture that is rarely, if ever, used by theorists to describe the Land of
Promise since "an island" does not match their models. What we can learn from the
predominance of comments regarding an east and west seas, is that the majority
of activity written about takes place along these much longer shorelines than
in the north and south.
Comment: “But notice that the key term of reference is
not "land north" (only five references) but "land
northward" (thirty-one references). There is, of course, a distinction;
"land northward" implies a direction somewhat off from literal
north.”
Response: First, the
correct definition known to Joseph Smith in his translation of “northward” would
have been from the 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, in which
“northward” is defined as “toward the north,” “more to the north than east or
west.”
The Land of Promise was divided into two
major land masses: The Land Northward and the Land Southward; and the Land
Southward was divided into two parts: the Land North (Mulek) and the Land South
(Lehi)
Second, the Land
North and the Land South are not the same as the Land Northward and the Land
Southward. Captain Moroni, makes this quite clear before the Nephites had moved
into the Land Northward and he is describing just the Land Southward, when he
proclaimed a land of Liberty: “And it came to pass that when he had poured out
his soul to God, he named all the land which was south of the land Desolation, yea, and in fine, all the land, both
on the north and on the south—A chosen land, and the land of liberty” (Alma
46:17). This Land Southward was further divided into two parts in Helaman: “Now
the land south was called Lehi and the land north was called Mulek, which was
after the son of Zedekiah; for the Lord did bring Mulek into the land north,
and Lehi into the land south” (Helaman 6:10), yet we know from Amaleki, an eye-witness to the events, that the Mulekites were brought into the land where Mosiah found them, i.e., into the Land of Zarahemla, which is in the Land Southward (Omni 1:16)—thus, the Land North is in the Land Southward.
The term “northward”
does not imply a direction off from north—it implies a direction “toward the
north,” and anciently, was often used to separate a northern land to the
immediate north, or closer north, than a more distance land further to the north, that is "northward." It is
like saying today, to someone living in St. George, Utah, that Salt Lake City
is to the north, and Canada is northward, or much further north. This entire
idea that “northward” means some skewed direction off of north was the
invention of LDS writers and scholars who needed to adjust the concept of “north”
to meet an angled Land of Promise.
The movement northward, or the direction
northward, falls between “north by west” and “north by east” or 23.5º of the
compass, and if extended directly to the north (more north than east or west),
it extends out to basically a movement or direction of north, or “toward the
north”
Whether or not the
land is angled is another matter, but to force the issue by making claims about
directions that are not correct is neither helpful nor scholarly. It is, for the
most part, simply self-serving.
Comment: “This implication that the lands are not
simply oriented to the cardinal directions is confirmed by reference to the
"sea north" and "sea south" (Helaman 3:8). These terms are
used only once, in reference to the colonizing of the land northward by the
Nephites, but not in connection with the land southward.”
Response: Theorists
seem to have a real problem in their trying to make the scriptural record agree
with their pre-determined views. It should be noted without question that the
entire record of the Nephites, and therefore Mormon’s abridgement, takes place
to the south of the Sea North, mentioned in Helaman. In fact, the most part of
the record takes place, in connection with seas, along the Sea East where the
Lamanites continually attacked during Alma’s time and the many wars fought in
that century. The point is that no activity in the far south is ever mentioned,
therefore, there is no reason to have the Sea South mentioned, other than the
one time of Nephite expansion. As for the Sea North, again, there is no Nephite
activity that far north—nothing beyond the Land of Many Waters, rivers and
fountains. And only once in the Ether record is it mentioned when the Sea
North, the Jaredites called Ripliancum, which by interpretation, is large, or
to exceed all—a perfect name for an ocean of considerable size. Certainly no
lake or smaller body of water would have such a name in the time of the
Jaredites who crossed the Great Deep and knew of the size of the ocean they
spent almost a year upon in reaching the Land of Promise.
Thus, we have the
statement by Mormon that the Nephites, once moving into the Land Northward,
expanded to fill the entire Land of Promise, because “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). He is talking about "from the Land Southward to the Land Northward, from the sea south (beyond the Land Southward) to the sea north, beyond the Land Northward..." It is like saying that Americans eventually spread from "sea to shining sea," i.e., from the sea east (Atlantic) to the sea west (Pacific).
As the Nephites spread into the Land
Northward and to cover most of the land, the comment is made that they then
covered the entire Land of Promise from sea to sea in all directions
There is no limiting
of the area covered in this statement—the Nephites expanded, and the children
of Lehi covered the entire Land of Promise: “from the sea south to the sea
north, from the sea west to the sea east.”
Comment: “The only way to have seas north and south on
a literal or descriptive basis would be for the two major bodies of land to be
oriented at an angle somewhat off true north-south. That would allow part of
the ocean to lie toward the south of one and another part of the ocean to lie
toward north of the other.”
Response: This is a
fallacious comment, and downright confounding—it is meant to be more complex and less easy to understand. Yet, Jacob describes their land in the midst to the sea as an
island, plain and simple, and he makes the comment in the Temple during a special meeting of the Nephites, with Nephi, who had seen the entire Land of Promise in a vision earlier, not only in attendance, but writing it down in the record, a record he states: "I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred" (1 Nephi 19:6). How can any theorist lay claim that Jacob and Nephi did not fully understand they were on an island?
An island would have four directional seas around it—each cardinal
direction given the name of a sea. This is not rocket science, it is the way
the ancients tended to name areas—by directions.
An island in the midst of the sea is going
to be surrounded by water in all directions. This is a pretty simple concept
and is the only one that matches all the descriptive scriptures regarding the
Land of Promise
Comment: “In terms of semantic domains, the text
conveys a sense of equivalence between the two seas, indicating that they are
the same kinds of bodied water and of similar magnitude.”
Response: Actually,
an island surrounded by water is going to have all four seas pretty much
the same size—they were in the midst of the seas over which they traveled (2
Nephi 10:20; “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” (emphasis mine).
Obviously, there will
be no end to this discussion on the whether or not Mormon’s directions in the
scriptural record are correct. As long as Mesoamericanists want to change the
directions of the Land of Promise so they can use their skewed directional map
and location, the argument will go on. It is too bad Mesoamericanists will
simply not accept the scriptural record as it was written and translated. Insisting the directions were skewed is
a disservice to both Mormon and Joseph Smith and lends no credence to the Book
of Mormon.
The point is, as it
always is when discussing differences among theorists, if all would just use
the scriptural record as Mormon and others wrote it, without trying to make it
fit a pre-determined area, location, or belief, there would be no argument.
North is north and south is south. Mormon knew that, Joseph Smith knew that,
and the Spirit knew that. But Mesoamericanists just can't accept that.
Continuing with the
article about one theorists’ defense of changing the scriptural record for it
to match his own viewpoint of the Land of Promise.
Comment: “Likening scriptures to oneself does not come
with license to flatten cultural distinctions. The issue of directions pervades
all aspects of Book of Mormon geography and not just the identification of the
narrow neck.”
Response: While it is true that not all people are
alike, or that all things relate to all people, the Lord’s scriptural message
is for all people in all circumstances at all times. It is also true that the
term Samuel the Lamanite uses, “mountains whose height is great,” can vary in
meaning for someone living in flat expanse of Kansas as opposed to someone
living in the Rocky Mountains of Utah, or someone living among the Andes or the
Himalayas, and a little “common sense” needs to be applied to understand the
purpose and circumstances of Samuel’s message and why the Lord chose that as a
sign. Likewise, the message “turn your garments as white as snow,” would have
no meaning to someone living on an island off the coast of Belize where it has
never snowed, and they have never seen nor heard of snow.
Comment: “To the degree that Mormon's descriptions of
directions conform to those for rural Utah today, Warr's proposal will prove
superior to Sorenson's on this criterion—and vice versa.”
Response: The compass
directions of the Book of Mormon as stated by Nephi and also by Mormon were
translated by Joseph Smith while living in the eastern United States before
“Utah” was even known. It is the directions that we know and understand
culturally, linguistically, seasonally, topographically, latitudinally, and
historically. While different languages use different terms, one would be hard
pressed to find any culture, civilization, and people in any period of history
who did not understand the four basic directions of a compass, based on the sun
rising and setting, and the other two sidereal directions thrown in, provided
they lived between 60º north and 60º south latitudes, which includes over 90%
of the world’s population, and both Jerusalem from which Lehi came, and any proposed area of the Land of Promise, including Mesoamerica.
Comment: “Flanked by a west sea and an east sea. This
criterion is also dependent on directional systems and naming, both of which
make sense only from a particular vantage point. One's point of reference is
critical. “
The Land of Promise is described as an
Island by Jacob, and recorded as such by Nephi (2 Nephi 10:20), giving it four
seas in the four cardinal directions as well as all around the island
Response: There is no
mention in the scriptural record to suggest the Land of Promise was flanked by
two seas. There were four, twice mentioned (Island and by name). The two seas
mentioned or referred to more than 20 times are the Sea East and the Sea West, where much of the activity in
Alma takes place.
The comments regarding the Sea West, are mostly in
connection with Hagoth and his shipbuilding enterprise, but also where Moroni was fighting his battles with the Lamanites. Both the Sea North and the Sea South are mentioned only once each. Still, when theorists use the concept of “flanked
by two seas,” not only are they referring to Mesoamerica, which only has two
seas, they are trying to condition and limit the reader’s thinking to a Land of
Promise with only two seas, which is not what the scriptural record tells us. Again, that is neither scholarly nor honest. It is
meant to further one’s own personal agenda, beliefs, and Land of Promise model.
It is the type of writing that Sorenson began in 1984 in his book An Ancient American setting for the Book of
Mormon, and has permeated since then with every writing of Mesoamerican theorists
who try to further their own beliefs rather than those of the scriptural
record.
In addition, the
author, never one to use one word or a simple phrase when several words or a
complicated phrase can be managed, writes: “This criterion is also dependent on
directional systems and naming, both of which make sense only from a particular
vantage point”—which, stated in plain English, means “This condition (flanked
by two seas) is based on compass directions in use and the vantage point of the
user, i.e., how the viewer sees directions.” This latter part is dependent, as
an example, on a Westerner thinking “north is up” on a map, an Easterner
thinking “east is up” on a map, Chinese thinking “south is up” on a map, etc.
However, in relation to how the statement is used above, the “directional
system” becomes one unique to the Book of Mormon, or unique to Mormon, or
unique to the Hebrews, depending on which the author chooses to use. And the
vantage point is in relation to whether or not the reader (or writer) is thinking
in terms of cardinal points or trying to assume another system is used in order
to justify a change in cardinal points.
Aborigines of Bali in Eastern Java,
Indonesia
As an example, like
in all mainstream knowledge, there are exceptions to almost everything. In
compass directions, there are some exceptions, but almost always these are
backward or aborigine cultures, such as ancient Hawaii and Bali, which uses
“toward the sea” or “toward the mountains” since that was the extent of their
worlds, i.e., toward the ocean or inland, which would pretty much cover almost
all directions on a small island.
In Egyptian, (left) A boat
under sail, meaning traveling downriver, north, or northward; Right: A
boat with an oar, meaning traveling upriver, south, or southward
Another is ancient
Egypt, which was a narrow strip of land running along the Nile River in either
a north (Lower Egypt or south (Upper Egypt) direction—there was no width to the
land, i.e., away from the river was desert which was not livable or traversable.
Thus, since the winds blew downriver and, travel downriver was depicted in hieroglyphs
as a boat with sail, and upriver, a boat with oars, which is translated into English
as upriver and downriver, which was the only two directions in their world.
Comment: “It is
obvious to everyone that Mesoamerica around the Isthmus of Tehuantepec has
oceans to the north and south rather than to the east and west. But from the
point of view of the Lehites and the Mulekites leaving Jerusalem, the Pacific
and Atlantic Oceans were eastward and westward paths to the promised land. The
designations of these seas appears to be tied to these original, arduous
journeys across oceans and the receding direction of their forfeited homeland"
Response: Lehi named
the sea he saw as they approached Bountiful, “Irreantum,” which means “many
waters.” In 1828, the word “many” meaning “numerous, comprising a great
number.” Thus, either from view or vision, Lehi understood that when he saw the
Sea of Arabia, he was looking at many seas or oceans that ran into one another.
It is unlikely that he or Nephi would have considered that the sea they took to
reach the Land of Promise, which no doubt took them in several different
directions (south, then southeast, then east, then north) would have been
considered a West Sea. It is much more reasonable to think that the cardinal
directions for the seas was given once in the Land of Promise, because they had
the sea all around them (they were on an island and Nephi and Jacob well
understood that).
Comment: “That the directional name might not be an
accurate descriptor for every inlet, bay, or stretch of beach is a different
matter.”
Response: To be
reasonable about this, when we look at the Pacific Ocean off the coast of the
United States we also see numerous coves, bays, inlets, and stretches of
beach—we do not change the name of the ocean to relate to any of these, any
more than the Hebrews changed the name of the Mediterranean as it hit upon the
shores, bays and inlets of their homeland. The name Mediterranean comes from
then Latin, mediterraneus, meaning
“inland” or “in the middle of the land,” because they saw it between Africa,
Asia and Europe. In Biblical times, it was called “The Great Sea.” (Numbers
34:6,7; Joshua 1:4, 9:1, 15:47; Exekiel 47:10,15,20), or simply "The
Sea" (1 Kings 5:9 and also in 1 Maccabees 14:34; 15:11), because it was the only real sea or ocean known to them (Galilee and the Dead Sea were tiny by comparison); however, it has
also been called the "Hinder Sea" (הַיָּם
הָאַחֲרוֹן),
due to its location on the west coast of Greater Syria or the Holy Land, and
was behind (hinder) a person facing east, which also translates to “Western
Sea” or “West Sea.” (Deuteronomy 11:24; Joel 2:20).
(See the next post,
“North – South and the Argument Goes On…Part III” to understand more of this line of
thinking about Mesoaemericanists and other theorists trying to change the
scriptural record or its meaning)
There is so much
written by so many theorists regarding the directions of the Land of Promise.
Each new article seems to challenge the very fiber of the integrity of the
scriptural record and the reason for our continual responses to these
directional claims.
In a recent article,
the author states: “General north-south
direction. Sorenson's argument about directional systems is that they are
cultural and not necessarily transparent.”
Response: You have to
love theorists who try to be scholarly that they tend to lose the understanding
of the reader and certainly cloud the issue. However, so authentic they sound
that the reader tends to more often than not accept them, though they may not be
completely understood.
You can twist, turn, cajole, make
outlandish claims and even alter a compass, but in the end, Mesoamerica still
runs east and west while Mormon describes the Book of Mormon Land of Promise as
running north and south
First of all, the
biggest problem most scholars/writers have on this issue with the scriptural
record is in 1) trying to deal with the problem that directions in the Book of
Mormon present, otherwise they cannot “prove” the change in directions of the
scriptural record, though they claim over and over again that they are not
doing this (not changing the scriptural record); and 2) thinking that directions generally have more or less changed
over time in some cultures (a culture is a group of people that can be set
apart from another group because of their human intellectual achievement, such
as arts, i.e., building technique, murals, crafts, pottery, etc.)
It is always amazing
to me that scholars want to keep selling the idea that directions have changed
over time, or even are different among different people (cultures). However,
based strictly on Astronomical Alignments
of Ancient Structures, what has been found through modern computer
technology, is that ancient cultures understood the four cardinal points as
well as we do today, and aligned their construction of buildings, including the
pyramids, on a strict orientation to the cardinal points. Ancients, as we do
today, use the sun and the stars as the guide to determining directions;
however, Polaris, or the North Star, was far less reliable at the time ancient
monuments were built as we have discussed in earlier posts. Still, has Gerald S.Hawkins showed in his Stonehenge Decoded (1988), the ancient builders knew the directions so well, that they perfectly aligned their structures to the cardinal points perfectly.
In fact, the ancient Egyptians
managed to line up the sides of their pyramids to the points of the compass
with extraordinary accuracy. The most accurate is the Pyramid of Khufu also
called the Great Pyramid, with the east and west sides off from true (geographical)
north by less than three minutes of arc. In fact, it took over 4,000 years
before the astronomer, Tycho Brahe, was able to take astronomical measurement
to a greater accuracy.
For those who are unaware of the technique, true
geographical North can be determined by noting the rising position of the Sun
in the East, and the setting position of the Sun in the West, and halving the
angle between them, which gives the direction of true North. Or you can find
true North at night by looking at the circle of stars and their path through
the sky and pinpoint the hub of the circle—which today is the North Star, or
Polaris, but in 1000 B.C., it was Kochab, and before that Thuban.
Left: The
circumpolar stars viewed from a northern hemisphere trace circles around the
Celestial North Pole—a point in the sky about which the stars appear to rotate; This time lapse photo over a full
night, shows that all of the visible stars appear to move in circles (some big
and some small). The star Polaris makes today an incredibly small circle
because it's right next to the Celestial North Pole
Likely, the pyramids
were oriented by the stars, and the position of the meridian could have been
obtained by bisecting the angle formed by the two extreme positions of a
circumpolar star, such as Vega, i.e., bisecting the angle between the set and
rise of Vega would reveal the exact location of the meridian—true North.
Comment: “Soliciting directions in a sun-centered
system is like asking someone to identify the shady side of a tree. This simple
request should elicit more questions because shade pivots with the sun through
the day and across the year.”
Response: Such a
comment is fallacious. In all ancient societies, the day was known by following
the arc of the sun across the sky. At almost any time of the day, an ancient
man (unlike modern man) could tell within minutes the time of day. They had no
watches, no clocks, no other way to know the time, and so relied on the arc of
the sun, which was a constant factor, taking roughly twelve hours to cross
through the sky (depending on time of year), and since early man’s very
survival rested on his knowing the Sun, the Stars, and how to read them for
such mundane factors as planting and harvesting, to disregard his awareness and
reliance upon the Sun is absurd.
Comment: “That celestial-dependent directions such as
east and west are a bit sloppy—seasonally, topographically, latitudinally, and
culturally—is such an anthropological commonplace that I have difficulty
understanding why Sorenson's proposal for directions has become so
controversial.”
Response: An
interesting comment. One can only wonder what prompted it other than trying to
cloud the issue so that Mesoaemrican directions can be better accepted. First
of all, celestial dependent directions is
all that early man had—he knew of no other directional system. That the sun
rose in one direction and set in the opposite direction taught him the sky and
world was divided into halves, that were obviously subdivided into
quarters—four of them. To those four quarters, he gave names. The first
direction he knew would have obviously been East, since that was where the sun
came up, where his day began, and from which came his blessings of light, heat,
food, and life.
In one of the
earliest cultures, that of the semetic Hittite, the word dutu-az, meaning “sungod,” is literally “from the direction of the sunrise,” or more simply, “from the east.” In Sumarian, the
cuneiform sign “dingir” or “digir”
(pronounced “din-jer”) had the meaning of god or goddess, but more
accurately light, sky, heaven, or “light in the eastern sky.” Later, Middle
English “est,” German “ost,” Latin, “aurora,” Greek “auos,” all meand "east," with Old Norse
“austr,” meaning “from the east” and “aster” meaning “eastward.”
In
the orient
(mizrah) meant "the
rising of the sun." Thus "the east country" is the country lying to the east of Syria, the Elymais (Zechariah 8:7). Properly what is in front of one, or a country that is before or in front of another; the rendering of the oft-used word by theorists, the word “kedem.” In pointing out the quarters, a Hebrew always looked with his face toward the east. The word “kedem” was used when the four quarters of the world are described (Genesis 13:14; 28:14); and “mizrah” when the "east" only was distinguished from the "west" (Joshua 11:3; Psalms 50:1; 103:12). In Genesis. 25:6 "eastward" is
literally "unto
the land of kedem" i.e., the lands lying east of Palestine, namely, Arabia, Mesopotamia,
etc.
The
point is, the direction of “east” has always been known, understood, and used.
Comment:
“Sorenson's critics,
among them Allen and Warr, insist that directions are universal absolutes that
conform to American common sense. In this regard it is worth stressing that
"common sense" is cultural code for culturally dependent knowledge
that makes little sense outside one's own time or place.”
Response: It is also
interesting that when Mesoamericanists, especially scholars, critique someone’s
writing that is not the same as their own, they often resort to an argument
that is neither scholarly nor factual. Common sense is defined as “good sense
and sound judgment in practical matters,” it is also defined as “sensibleness,
levelheadedness, prudence, discernment, astuteness, wisdom, insight,
perception.” Thus, one cannot isolate it to a culture, to just America, nor can
it be said to mean “culturally dependent knowledge that makes little sense
outside one’s own time or place.” As an example, it is common sense not to swim
alone; not to jump off a cliff into an unknown water area; not to pass on a
mountain turn; not to allow your baby to crawl into the street; not to walk
across a field full of bulls; pay your bills on time; don’t spend money you
don’t have; etc. Common sense is called “common” because it relates to all
areas at all times, among all people, in all circumstances.
(See the next post,
“North – South and the Argument Goes On…Part II” to get more of this line of
thinking about Mesoaemericanists and other theorists trying to change the
scriptural record or its meaning)
Alma the Younger received the plates about 92 B.C. (Mosiah
28:20), and Mormon took them up as Ammaron commanded when he was 24 years old,
in 334 A.D.
Assuming that Mormon chose the name Moroni for his son based
on Captain Moroni (left), who served as chief captain of the Nephite armies
between 74 and 57 B.C., we can suggest that Mormon’s son, Moroni, was probably
born around 40 to 50 A.D., when Mormon was around 30 to 40 years of age.
Certainly, as a military man since he was 15 (Mormon 1:15), Mormon
would have had little time for courting, marrying and fathering children. Mormon’s
birth about 310 A.D. (Mormon 1:1), suggests he would have been 10 years old in
320 A.D., 30 years old in 340 A.D., and 40 years old in 350 A.D. Mormon would
have had access to those records from the time he was about 24 years of age
(334 A.D.), according to his writings.
In addition, between the time of Mosiah leaving the city of
Nephi and the prophet Mormon’s birth—a period of about 500 years (225 B.C. to
325 A.D.)—much had happened among the Nephites, most of which had taken place
within the lands of Zarahemla, Bountiful, and the Land Northward, the latter
being completely covered with Nephites by around 46 B.C.
As an example, we know that Mormon was a pure descendant
(Mormon1:5) of Lehi from Jerusalem, and was born in the year 310 A.D., (Mormon
1:2), which was at the time the three special disciples of Christ were still on
the earth, though they were just about the only righteous ones left (4 Nephi
1:46). We also know that wickedness was rampant and robbers were everywhere
(Mormon 1:18).
However, Mormon must have been a stalwart among the Nephite
people, a man apart, different than all the others:
1. At the age of 10 a prophet of the lord named Ammaron
visited him with instructions about entrusting him with the sacred plates;
2. At the age of 15, he was visited by Jesus Christ (Mormon
1:15);
3. At the age of 15 he was forbidden to preach among the
Nephhites (Mormon 1:17);
4. At the age of 16 he was made commander-in-chief of all
the Nephite Armies (Mormon 2:2).
5. At the age of 16, he led the Nephite Armies in the
defense of their land in a war with the Lamanites (Mormon 2:2)
It should be kept in mind that the Nephites had several
standing armies and created additional ones when needed (such as the stripling
Warriors under Helaman—left), and over each of these commands were stationed or
appointed captains, and over all the armies and their captains was appointed a
Chief Captain (what we call Commander-in-Chief today). At the time of Mormon,
when 16 years of age, he was appointed Chief Captain, or commander-in-chief.
It should also be kept in mind that it was the custom among
all the Nephites (save it were in their times of wickedness) to appoint military leaders that had
the spirit of revelation; and also prophesy.
Therefore the chiefest among all the
captains and the great commander of the armies of the Nephites was appointed
and his name was Mormon, who obviously would have been a man of great stature among his peers and those much older than him, a man of righteousness, a man seen living close to God.
At this point in time, we do not know who the parentage of
Mormon’s father was, however, we can align his age with that of the
prophets/leaders of the Nephite nation. With Mormon being born around 310 A.D.,
we can suggest that his father, Mormon, would have been born between 270 and
280 A.D., and Mormon’s grandfather would have
been born around 230 to 240 A.D.—about the time the evil people began again to build
up again and “wax strong” in the land (4 Nephi 1:40).
Remember, the years before this time had been the Nephite Golden
Age, the years after the advent of the Savior, the years when there were no
“robbers, nor murderers, neither were their Lamanites, nor any manner of –ites;
but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the Kingdom of God”
(4 Nephi 1:17) and they had everything in common (3 Nephi 26:19), and they did
all things even as Jesus had commanded them (3 Nephi 26:20).
However, about the time of Mormon’s grandfather, through the time of Mormon’s father’s birth, “the wicked part of the people began
again to build up the secret oaths and combinations of Gadianton (4 Nephe
1:42), and the people “who were called the people of Nephi began to be proud in
their hearts, because of their exceeding riches and become vain like unto their
brethren, the Lamanites” (4 Nephi 1:43), “and from this time the disciples
began to sorrow for the sins of the world” (4 Nephi 1:44).
It is very possible that about this time, Mormon’s
grandfather fathered Mormon’s father, who he named “Mormon,” in hopes of
retrenching the Nephite people to stop the movement and growth of evil and
return the Nephites back toward their Golden Age.
He might have chosen “Mormon” as the name, reminding all of
the “Waters of Mormon” where Alma brought about a great conversion of the
people, re-established the Church of God, and put the Nephites back on the road
to righteousness.
Thus Mormon’s father may have been given his name as a sign
(or hope) that a renewal was on the horizon or underway among certain leaders,
since a return to righteousness was certainly needed. As has been suggested on
these pages in the past, since the leadership among the Nephites was often a
father-to-son arrangement of worthy men, such as Moroni to Moronihah; Nephihah,
son of Nephi, Nephite commander; Pahoran, chief judge and military leader after
his father Nephihah, son of Nephihah; and there were also Cumenihah, son of
Cumeni, Nephite commander; Limhah, son of Limi, Nephite commander; Nephi son of
Helaman, or Nephi to Nephihah, the second Nephite chief judge, or Mathonihah,
son of Mathoni, both one of the twelve Nephite disciples.
Perhaps Mormon’s father was made the captain of the Nephite
armies as part of this renewal, called back to Zarahemla, and brought eleven-year-old Mormon with him (Mormon 1:6). The point is, Mormon himself was a
man of outstanding qualities, giving remarkable positions of importance, both
spiritual and temporal, over the Nephite nation at an unprecedented early age—this seems most likely to have resulted from the position of his father.
Nor did this change throughout his lifetime. The
Lord chose Mormon to compile from numerous plates and then abridge the Nephite
dispensation of the gospel of Jesus Christ—a millennial-long history of the
Nephite nation; he commanded 230,000 soldiers at Cumorah in their final battles
with the Lamanites; he wandered with his
beleaguered armies across the Land of Promise, not only concerned about his
personal safety, but also fully aware of his responsibility to look after the
spiritual and temporal souls of his people (even knowing the time of grace had
already passed with them), to protect and secure the plates of his record, and
to return them to hiding in the earth so they would not be found by the Lamanites and therefore destroyed.
The greatness of
Mormon should be quite clear to anyone who studies the Book of Mormon. The
leaders of Nephite armies were much more than military commanders as we know
today. They were also prophets, which is obviously why, in his abridgement,
Mormon wanted the future generations to know about them and their
accomplishments in serving the Lord.
For five long bloody years the Nephites held the line. It
appears that it was during this time that Mormon wrote a second letter to his
son, Moroni (Moroin 8:1). In that letter He tells of the Lamanites capturing
many Nephites, slaying the men and forcing the women and children to eat the
flesh of their husbands and fathers.
At the end of this battle, as
before, a very large number of Nephite women and children were taken captive
and sacrificed to the Lamanite gods. He
then recounts how brutal and barbaric his own people had become, stating that
their only desire was for blood in revenge.
He recounts how the Nephites in the
city of Moriantum captured many Lamanite women and after depriving them of
their chastity and virtue, tortured them to death (Moroni 8:7-10).
In this letter, Mormon offers up little hope that he himself
will survive the terrible battles.
Nevertheless, He tells his son that he is
laboring hard, using much sharpness of tongue, to get the Nephites to repent
but they won't listen to his words anymore. Nevertheless, he still counsels his
son not to be weary in preaching repentance unto the people.
In 380 A.D. the Lamanites came at the Nephites with an
overwhelming force of men. Although the Nephites fought boldly, it wasn't
enough to stop the invasion. By sheer numbers, the Lamanites easily over ran
the Nephite defenders and cut down their ranks to the right and left. Without
any way or hope of protecting themselves, the Nephites fled in absolute terror
for their lives. Their flight was so swift that it can only be described as a
full fledge rout—with men racing as fast as they could, their only hope was to
out run the Lamanite killing machine that pressed on their flanks and nipped
continually at their heels.
Those who couldn't run quickly enough were cut down and
destroyed (Mormon 5:7).
As the Nephite army fled
northward, they gathered their people from each town and village they passed
through. Those who didn't join the army were destroyed with fire by the
advancing Lamanites (Mormon 5:5). It appears that the invaders were
implementing a scorched earth policy to make sure their enemies had nothing to
return to should they win a battle or two. When Mormon saw this, and knowing
the prophecies contained in the records, knew that the Lamanites would
completely over run the land this time. While he still had the chance, he went
to the hill Shim, gathered all the sacred records which Ammaron had hidden, and
fled with them to the city of Jordan (Mormon 4:23).
Even though he had made himself a
promise to never lead his people in battle again, once in Jordan, at age 65, he
relented and offered his services to them, despite knowing there was no hope of
winning the war. Under his leadership the Nephites began to fortify not only
the city of Jordan but all the other nearby cities as well, in an effort to
form a straight defensive line from the east to the west. The purpose of this
was to prevent the Lamanites from getting to the cities and towns, which laid
further north (Mormon 5:4).
"It is impossible for the tongue to describe, or for man to write a perfect descrption of the horrible scene of the blood and carnage which was among the people, both of the Nephites and of the Lamanties, and every heart was hardened, so that they delighted in the shedding of blood continually" (Mormon 4:11)
What had once been a very large nation was quickly being
reduced in size to no more than a large tribe. So great was the massacre that
Mormon stopped telling us the details of what happened during the next five
years. We have no information of where they went during that time, if they
tried to take a stand and defend themselves or any other specific aspects of
what happened.
By the end of 384 A.D., and at the age of 74, Mormon was
able to resume his narrative and continue the record. At this point he was able
to gather the remainder of his people in the land of Cumorah—a
pitifully small fighting force of a once mighty army. All that remained were 23
regiments of 10,000 men each. At this point their total number was only
230,000, which included men, women and children.
Knowing that there was no more
hope, and tired of running and fighting, Mormon wrote to the King of the
Lamanites and asked if he could have some time to prepare for one last battle.
Surprisingly, the King consented to Mormon's request (Mormon 6:2-3). It was, after all,
the Lamanite plan for centuries to wipe out the Nephites completely. No doubt
this king saw this final likelihood after all these generations of having that
one goal in mind.
So how familiar
are we with the life of Mormon, the man who abridged the scriptural record from
King Benjamin to his own writing, with his son, Moroni, abridging the Jaredite
record.
We know that Mormon
had at least one son, whom he named Moroni, after the famed Captain Moroni
whose bravery as chief captain over the Nephites, and spiritual leadership,
caused Mormon to write: “if all men had
been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of
hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over
the hearts of the children of men” (Alma 48:17).
Mormon was born in
310 A.D., in what the Nephites called the Land Northward. While he was named
after his father, his father was named after the Land of Mormon mentioned in
connection with the City of Nephi. After Mosiah was told to flee into the
wilderness (Omni 1:12) from the city
Nephi, son of Lehi, founded (2 Nephi 5:5, 7-8), there were two groups of these
Nephites who traveled back to the city of Nephi to reclaim their land of first
inheritance (Mosiah 9:1). The first group did not bode well and most were
killed in an internal struggle over power. The second group, led by a Nephite
named Zeniff, fared better, making a treaty (“a covenant” Mosiah 9:6) with the
Lamamite king Laman, and acquiring the city of Nephi as their home in the land
they now called Lehi-Nephi, and in an adjacent land called Shilom (Mosiah 9:6).
A fountain of pure water, or a spring, from
which the Waters of Mormon were fed. Left: A natural spring shooting up in to
the air from a pressure hole in the rock beneath; Right: Two types of natural
springs, one with multiple holes, the other with one large hole (called a
geyser)
Near to the main city
complex was a land called Mormon and a fountain of pure water called the Waters
of Mormon, and also a thicket of small trees that could hide a man (Mosiah
18:5).
The names were given
by the king (Mosiah 18:4), but which king we are not told—it could have been
one of Nephi’s descendants (Second Nephi, Third Nephi, etc.) who was king
(Jacob 1:9, 11), or it could have been Zeniff, who became king, or his son king
Noah, or it could have been the Lamanite king Laman from whom the treaty was
obtained (or his earlier lineage). So how the name “Mormon” was chosen we are
not told and cannot be inferred, so brief is the information, although we do
know that in conjunction with the king naming the land “Mormon,” it was in the
borders of the land having been infested, in times or at seasons, by wild
beasts” (Mosiah 18:4).
So what kind of man
was Mormon? What kind of person? Where did he live? We know that Moroni was his son,
but when and where was he and any other children born? Did Mormon die on
Cumorah, or did he leave there, finish his record, bury the plates and then succumb
to his wounds?
Even though Mormon's record doesn't give us many specific
details, there is still much we can learn from a careful study of the scriptural
record. Why, as an example, was Mormon’s father named after the land of Mormon,
which was in the Land of Nephi in the Land Southward? In a land that had always
been controlled by the Lamanites from about 225 B.C. onward, except for a few
years with the three Nephite kings.
Did his naming have to do with that land, which figured so
prominently in the conversion, safety, and growth of Alma and the early Church
before they were driven out and back to Zarahemla? The record on this point is silent, but we know that Mormon was one of the great Nephite prophets whom the Lord entrusted to abridge the record that was to come forth in a later day to not only provide us with the story of this people and the Land of Promise, but would be as a second witness of Jesus Christ. Surely, Mormon fulfilled one of the great and important roles of ancient man—and did so with mighty zeal and greatness. He also showed us that one man, surrounded by evil and horrendous depredation that was beyond the imagination, stood valiantly for righteousness and never ceased to try and turn the tide and the people to the Lord.
In looking at
Mormon’s contribution to this time frame, it was in 345 A.D., when he
was 35 years old, the Lamanites came against the city of Joshua in such numbers
that the Nephite army fled from before them. But this time they did not just
flee to the next northern city in a temporary escape.
Instead they fled many miles in
a circuitous route from a position west by the seashore to somewhere near the
hill to the east seashore to the city of Jashon, that is, they retreated
through the land of Bountiful, through the narrow neck of land, through the
land of Desolation and all the way to the land of Jashon, which was near where
Ammaron had buried the Nephite records (Mormon 2:16).
Although Ammaron had instructed
Mormon to come to this spot when he was 24 years old, which he had done earlier
(Mormon 2:17), at this point in time, the Nephites were sore-pressed
by the attacking Lamanites and it wasn’t until they reached this spot that the
Nephite retreat could be halted (Mormon 2:16).
Amidst this terror and bloodshed
that was so full of wickedness and abominations that Mormon refused to write a
full account on the plates because “a
continual scene of wickedness and abominations has been before mine eyes ever
since I have been sufficient to behold the ways of man” (Mormon 2:18). Now,
at the age of 35, Mormon unearths the plates once again and during the
remainder of that year, he used the time to make a full account of the
wickedness and abominations of his people up to that time upon the large plates
of Nephi which Ammaron had buried (Mormon 2:17,18).
By the beginning of the next
year, 346 A.D. the Lamanite army attacked Jashon and Mormon and his people were
driven from the city and fled north to the city of Shem. However, Mormon did
not take the Plates of Nephi with him. Instead, he re-hid them in the hill Ramah
before leaving the area.
Once in Shem, Mormon spoke to his
people with great energy and passion, inspiring them to stand firm and fight
for the lives of their women and children. For once, his words found a place in
their hearts, because when the Lamanites attacked the city of Shem, the
Nephites fought back with fierce determination rather than running. In fact,
they fought so hard, that their 30,000-man army put to flight the 50,000-man
army of the Lamanites. Encouraged by their success, the Nephites pursued the
Lamanites and were victorious a second time in forcing their enemies to flee
further south.
For another four years the fierce
fighting continued until, in 350 A.D., the two nations entered into a truce
agreement at the narrow passage, what had earlier been called the narrow neck of land. The Nephites were allowed to occupy
everything from the point of the narrow passage of land north, while the Lamanites kept
possession of all the area south of there. That meant that the land of
Desolation was now the southern most boundary of the Nephite kingdom (Mormon
2:29). Zarahemla and the land Bountiful were now permanently part of the
Lamanite territory.
During the next ten years, Mormon
kept his people busy fortifying their cities and preparing their lands and
themselves against the time when the Lamanites might some day attack them. As
part of that preparation, Mormon cried repentance unto his people continually,
admonishing them that if they would build up the Church of Christ they would be
spared, but most of the people would not soften their hearts nor heed his
message (Mormon 3:2,3). However, Mormon must have had some success, because his
son Moroni later recorded an address his father gave to a small group of
Nephites who belonged to "the church that are the peaceable followers of
Christ" (Moroni 7:3).
It also appears that during this
time, Moroni himself was called to the ministry. Since the true teachings of
Christ had fallen into apostasy, Moroni erroneously began preaching the need
for child baptism. No sooner did his father find out about this than he wrote
his son a letter, explaining why children don't need to be baptized (Moroni 8)
In 360 A.D. the king of the
Lamanites sent a letter to Mormon stating that they were preparing to do battle
against the Nephites and suggested that they meet in the land of Desolation.
Why the king sent this letter rather than just attacking without warning can
only be surmised. Perhaps he thought that they were strong enough to wipe out
the entire Nephite army in one major battle rather than chase them from city to
city.
But whatever the reasoning,
Mormon accepted the offer. The next year the two armies met each other in
mortal combat in the land of Desolation. However, it was the Lamanites who were
defeated and retreated southward to their land. Despite this loss, the
following year, they again tried to conquer the Nephite army, but as before
they were soundly defeated and suffered an extremely large number of
casualties. There were so many bodies on the battlefield that the Nephites
threw the dead into the sea rather than burying them.
Because of their great victory,
the Nephites began to boast in their own strength and were certain that their
military might had become superior to that of the Lamanites. With an exalted
opinion of themselves, they felt they could defeat their enemy anywhere at any
time. So confident were they that they swore an oath by God and His heaven that
they would avenge the blood of their people. This time, however, it wasn't
merely a matter of preserving their lives and their liberties. Now they lusted
for blood.
When Mormon saw their attitude,
he would have no part in it. When they persisted in their desire, Mormon
refused to join with them. If they were going to war as an act of revenge, he
would not be with them, either in command or as a participant. As such, in 362
A.D., after leading his people in battle for nearly 36 years, the 52 year old
Mormon retired from military life (Mormon 3:16).
During the next five years the
two armies fought many times. Twice the Nephites lost the city Desolation and
once they lost the city of Teancum, but were able to recapture both.
However,
during that time, the Lamanites had captured a great number of women and
children and sacrificed them to their gods. Finally, in 367 A.D. the Nephites
were so outraged over this atrocity, that in a blind rage of fury, they drove
the Lamanites back into their own lands. So great was this destruction that the
Lamanites didn't attack the Nephites for another eight years.
From 362 to 375, Mormon was an
observer of life. There is no account of what he did during this 13 year
period, but it's safe to say that he continued to cry repentance unto his
people and also used the time to began his work of abridgment. But exactly when
and how he received the inspiration to do an abridgment of the records in his
care is unknown.
However, it's safe to say that before beginning his
abridgement, he must have spent considerable time reading and digesting all the
records that had been entrusted to his care. It is also clear that Mormon had
the original records at his disposal as he wrote his abridgement because he
quotes extensively from them. Furthermore, the inserted comments he
occasionally makes in his record further shows that he had a complete
understanding of the entire history of his people before ever starting his
abridgment. How long all of this work took him is unknown, but we know that by
375 A.D. he still had not finished his project.
It was in that year that the
Lamanites came back with a vengeance. By then their army was so large that
their numbers couldn't be counted. In fact, Mormon records that from this time
forward, the Nephites could no longer win any battles against them and they
were swept from the earth as the dew before the sun (Mormon 4:18).
At the city of Desolation, the
Nephites fought hard and lost many men as they valiantly struggled to preserve
their land, but, when it became clear they could no longer withstand the
Lamanite onslaught, they fled north to the city of Boaz. Once there they were
able to repel the Lamanite's first attack, but were defeated during the second
assault.
(See the next post, "The Unusual Men - Mormon Pt II," for the full story of this valiant and spiritual man who almost single-handedly kept the Lamanite army at bay and preserved the Nephite Nation all his life, finally giving that life in the final battle of his people)
