Directions in the BoM

[stux]

What would have been to normal means to determine direction of North, South etc 600 B.C. for Lehi and Family? I would think they would rely on the firmament of the heavens to determine location or did they have compasses? Liahona the ultimate compass

Honestly if they relied on the stars, why on earth would directions have to suddenly change in the Americas? FYI LGT?? I know it has to do with the location of geography for the BOM, I am guessing it means local geographical theory.. anyway If Joseph wrote down North why cant North simply mean North?

[Joseph Antley]

What would have been to normal means to determine direction of North, South etc 600 B.C. for Lehi and Family? I would think they would rely on the firmament of the heavens to determine location or did they have compasses? Liahona the ultimate compass

Honestly if they relied on the stars, why on earth would directions have to suddenly change in the Americas? FYI LGT?? I know it has to do with the location of geography for the BOM, I am guessing it means local geographical theory.. anyway If Joseph wrote down North why cant North simply mean North?

You assume that people orient their directions the same way. If I use the setting sun to pinpoint west, and then I use the north star to pin point north, it's probably not going to make a perfect 90-degree angle.

[notHagoth7]

You all seem to think the translation was a word for word dictation.

That doesn't align with my general view of revelation. (I've described that elsewhere in the last week or two.)

That said, I believe Joseph accurately conveyed the meaning of the Nephite accounts.

Even when he used English words like "north", "south", etc.

In the context of the translation process, the counsel to Oliver is worth considering:

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.

I simply don't believe Joseph would have felt right proceeding beyond some of the verses that include cardinal directions if north actually meant west. And west meant south. And south meant east, etc. Instead, I believe that in such a scenario, Joseph would have encountered a stupor of thought until a more appropriate expression was conveyed.

But hey, mebbe I'm just funny that way.

[stux]

Nephi's north was not necessarily Mormon's north. They're from (almost literally) different worlds and lived in completely different cultures. It would be like expecting modern Americans to be the same as Europeans during the Middle Ages -- except back everyone up a few thousand years.

In other words, it's very possible that the word evolved to take on whatever new meaning was needed by the people using it.

Do I necessary believe that's what happened? No. But it definitely seems plausible to me, and perhaps even likely.

How did Lehi determine north? If it was by geography and earthen landmarks then certainly it would have been different for Mormon's north. If lehi had traveled to the Nomadic trail multiple times previously then sure he could have determined north and south by geographical formations. What is the evidence that he did or could have traveled it before? Personally I think Lehi used the sky as a "compass" and that same sky existed when Mormon determined north from south. What clear reasoning should lead me to believe Mormon's north was determined differently then Lehi's?

Unless I can be convinced otherwise I don't see Lehi's North should be any different then Mormon's North and if inconsistencies and contradictions arise from the LGT, rather then stretching the assumption that North must have been different for Lehi and Mormon, why not just admit that its a serious conflict with the LGT theory?

[notHagoth7]

Would that be "magnetic north" or "true north".

Splitting hairs. As your grin surely already acknowledges.

[stux]

You assume that people orient their directions the same way. If I use the setting sun to pinpoint west, and then I use the north star to pin point north, it's probably not going to make a perfect 90-degree angle.

I suppose, I admit the only technical use of determining north from west etc. is from scouts and I don't even remember that. Does anyone have a sound understanding of determining location by the heavens and can comment on how the heavens would have changed between the time of Lehi and Mormon and how North would have been skewed over that time? I would think the same guidelines Lehi used would have been passed down from generation to generation until Mormon so I don't find an argument that they would have had different ways of determining direction to be very effective.

[notHagoth7]

...why not just admit that its a serious conflict with the LGT theory?

1) From what I've seen, those who have to jump through that hoop openly acknowledge it's a hurdle.

And openly offer their tweak of the compass to support their preferred model.

2) And as you're probably aware, as Hashbaz clarified, it's only a conflict for a limited subset of the various LGT models.

[rodheadlee]

While they didn't have compasses, they knew how to tell directions with remarkable accuracy. It isn't an issue of ignorance. The could have defined the cardinal directions the way we think of them today. It just doesn't appear they chose to do so, or more accurately, when the Book of Mormon uses cardinal directions that it means exactly the same thing we mean them to be today.

True north or magnetic north? The variation changes according to your location, it's about 14* E in So Cal.

[wenglund]

Personally I think Lehi used the sky as a "compass" and that same sky existed when Mormon determined north from south. What clear reasoning should lead me to believe Mormon's north was determined differently then Lehi's?

When considering celestial navigation/orientation, it is important to keep in mind that the earth's axis not only wobbles, but changes in tilt/obliquity over time. The North Star wasn't always due North. (Yet more humours hairsplitting)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stux]

1) From what I've seen, those who have to jump through that hoop openly acknowledge it's a hurdle.

And openly offer their tweak of the compass to support their preferred model.

2) And as you're probably aware, as Hashbaz clarified, it's only a conflict for a limited subset of the various LGT models.

Right, some have openly acknowledged its a hurdle to jump through and it does not apply to all LGT models. My main problem is that this kind of apologetics is idiotic. Its the kind that twists and bends every way it can in order to maintain a certain structure without noticing it broke a while ago. When I see this i just have to palm my forehead and walk away because its apparent the shattered object is not going to be fixed. Anyway, I am just saying I think its absurd and someone might as well argue that Mormon's sea is our lake. Just sayn

[stux]

When considering celestial navigation/orientation, it is important to keep in mind that the earth's axis not only wobbles, but changes in tilt/obliquity over time. The North Star wasn't always due North. (Yet more humours hairsplitting)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So are you saying East was once North and south was also North at some time or are you saying North may have varied between Northeast and Northwest through time without the earth ever tilting enough to be West or East. I am fine that it varies to small degrees and that North can be North but with a small variance, but Someone once stated North = east or something like that in a conversation I had and if thats the held opinion I remain very skeptical there could have been a shift of that magnitutde.

[Markk]

Nephi's north was not necessarily Mormon's north. They're from (almost literally) different worlds and lived in completely different cultures. It would be like expecting modern Americans to be the same as Europeans during the Middle Ages -- except back everyone up a few thousand years.

In other words, it's very possible that the word evolved to take on whatever new meaning was needed by the people using it.

Do I necessary believe that's what happened? No. But it definitely seems plausible to me, and perhaps even likely.

JA,

Your missing the point, the point is that the BoM was supposedly translated by the power of God. Are you saying God didn't understand the true directions of each respective BoM passage? Again you need to look at it from an interpretation point of view and who was translating the text. Saying that people didn't know the difference from north and south is one thing, but by defending poor LDS scholarship that takes these type of liberties with BoM text implies that God couldn't get the translation in true context. This is a in-house issue that LDS members should think about before jumping on the "scholarship bus".

Look at what you saying above, why can't the Bom stand on it's own merits without needing scholarship to define and apply opposite meaning to words.

Mark

[notHagoth7]

My main problem is that this kind of apologetics is...

I hear you. And I wouldn't even call it apologetics, since it is generally intended for internal use within the Mormon umbrella. (I have yet to see that model rolled out in the context of someone who didn't already have a testimony of the Book of Mormon.)

But I'd suggest toning down the verbiage a bit. No need to rile one another up with insults.

[notHagoth7]

...

[stux]

I hear you. And I wouldn't even call it apologetics, since it is generally intended for internal use within the Mormon umbrella. (I have yet to see that model rolled out in the context of someone who didn't already have a testimony of the Book of Mormon.)

But I'd suggest toning down the verbiage a bit. No need to rile one another up with insults.

Maybe I like getting rises out of people I called that type of logic idiotic and not the individuals, but I huuur yu muh brutha

[Nofear]

True north or magnetic north? The variation changes according to your location, it's about 14* E in So Cal.

Magnets weren't in common use anciently - not even in the West. Yet, it was known what was true North - even when Polaris wasn't near the North Celestial Pole. Heck, Hipparchus knew that the precision of the North Celestial Pole was about 26,000 years well before the birth of Christ. And there is very good reason to believe the Mayans were just as skilled (if not more so) in their astronomical knowledge (heck, part of the 2012 hullabaloo is because of precession of the equinoxes).

Let there be no doubt whatsoever -- the ancient Mayans knew directionality very, very well.

Look at what you saying above, why can't the Bom stand on it's own merits without needing scholarship to define and apply opposite meaning to words.

Consistent with the above "let there be no doubt whatsoever", the Book of Mormon authors knew what North was as we call North. That, however, does not mean that when they said or wrote the word "North" it meant the same as the strict sense of 0

[Freedom]

Farms review

The origional article has a representation of how a mesoamerican compass may have worked.

The Mesoamerican compass may have been more anthrocentric than geocentric. Their concept of god was, I think, unique in that they did not have a concept of heaven. The gods would travel from below the earth and view their people as they traveled over and back down to dwell beneath the earth. The gods, or the sun, would travel, from their perspective, from the south and over top the set in the north. If you read Alma 18:24-32 you will have a glimpse into this cultural perspective. Ammon talks to Lamoni about the Great Spirit and Lamoni responds by saying

[poulsenll]

Farms review

The origional article has a representation of how a mesoamerican compass may have worked.

The Mesoamerican compass may have been more anthrocentric than geocentric. Their concept of god was, I think, unique in that they did not have a concept of heaven. The gods would travel from below the earth and view their people as they traveled over and back down to dwell beneath the earth. The gods, or the sun, would travel, from their perspective, from the east and over top the set in the west. If you read Alma 18:24-32 you will have a glimpse into this cultural perspective. Ammon talks to Lamoni about the Great Spirit and Lamoni responds by saying

[poulsenll]

Markk had a great observation that I would like to further explore.

First, I am a bit rusty on the specifics, so please correct me if I get anything wrong.

1) Apologist argument for the route Lehi took from Jerusalem to NHM, Bountiful and finally to where they built the ship to take them across the ocean seem to match exactly a well used nomadic trail. How could JS have possibly known this?

2) Apologists for the LGT argue that the directions in the new world are turned 90 degrees to account for the bodies of water. North becomes west, etc.

First off, am I understanding the arguments correctly here? If so, shouldn't there be some consistency in directions? It doesn't seem as if you can have both.

Thoughts?

See my discussion of BofM directions at

http://poulsenll.org/bom/bomdirections.html

Sorenson assumed that Mormon was referring to Oceans rather than the smaller seas such as the Red Sea, the Gulf of Mexico and the Carribean. He was thinking in modern geocentric terms rather than Mesoamerican anthrocentric concepts.

Larry P

[Markk]

Scottie:

First Nephi 16:13

13. 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.

They knew general directionality.

How do you know that south is south, or that a tent is really a tent and that shazser is really shazer? JS did not have a full understanding of the translation process and shazer having six letters in it most likely meant Arabia which also has six letters in it, and we all know that Arabia is either North,south,east,or west according to the mesoamerican compass away from the holy land which would actually place shazer in Missouri.

Mark

[phaedrus ut]

See my discussion of BofM directions at

http://poulsenll.org/bom/bomdirections.html

Larry P

Why are you using Aztec directional details yet firmly trying to place those concepts with Mayan geography? The Mayan script has four very specific directional glyphs. There is some disagreement as to whether they refer to the suns path(east, zenith, west, nadir) or match the cardinal directions as we know them.

For example, if you look at the Classic Maya tomb found at Rio Azul Guatemala it has the four directional glyphs placed on its walls correctly matching the four cardinal directions. If this evidence supported the crazy skewed directions for the BOM then apologists would be shouting from the rooftops but as I've consistently seen all contrary evidence is conveniently ignored.

Phaedrus

[mfbukowski]

Those who argue for the Grijalva as Sidon need to shift the directions, those who argue for the Usumacinta as Sidon generally keep all of the cardinal directions in place. Although I don't adhere strongly to one model or the other, from my background growing up in Long Beach I can tell you that north does not always mean north. The 405 North and the 605 North freeways will take you to very different directions (and they intersect nearly perpendicular to each other).

Nofear's diagrams nicely illustrate the Mesoamerican concepts of world directions.

Not to mention the 101 North in the San Fernando Valley which will take you due west.

[mfbukowski]

I got lucky, on the vehicle I spend most of my time cruising around in (A US Coast Guard Cutter), we're rockin' twin gyro compasses. North most definatly IS north. LOL

Thats for me at least.

Magnetic or True?

[mfbukowski]

Why would God, as the ultimate translator of the book, have given Smith the word "north" to write down if the direction in Smith's world is actually known as "west"?

I guess you are not a believer in Ostler's Expanded translation view. But that is not the topic of the thread.

[mfbukowski]

Would that be "magnetic north" or "true north".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

oops--- "great minds...."