Directions in the BoM

[Nofear]

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.

Again, there is no doubt that the Mayan's knew how to determine precise cardinal directions. But it is quite on thing to say that a glyph for East means precisely 90

[mfbukowski]

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

But what do you mean by

correctly matching the four cardinal directions

Certainly East and West can be defined by the rising and setting of the sun, but what does this have to do with a correct translation of what "North" means in the Book of Mormon?

Let's make up a language in which the four directions are "Motz, Fotz, Potz, and Zotz." and another in which they were called "Glop, Pop, Nop, and Rop". Suppose all had glyphs for each in the two different languages. How would we know that "Fotz" = "Glop"?

The answer is that we would need some corresponding evidence external to the languages which gave a common context. For example, both cultures refereed to the same sacred mountain which was North of one culture and South of the other. Then at least we would know which word and/or glyph corresponded to "North" in each.

But here of course there is no common context between the translated "reformed Egyptian" and the Mayan, or the Aztec, or the English to establish that.

So the fact that Mayans "correctly matched the four cardinal directions" is irrelevant, because we still have no common context with the language of the BOM

[Uncertain]

I am curious how those who believe in the shifting directions deal with this in trying to correlate BOM geography with real world locations. For example when an apologists uses internal clues from the BOM to argue that say the river Grijalva is the same as the river Sidon in the BOM they make their case on the basis of internal BOM textual clues. However if indeed the directions are different in various parts of the BOM then unless you can specify exactly at what point the directions changed using BOM textual clues is very problematic. If indeed Mosiah meant a very different direction when he said "east" then Mormon did when he said "east" assuming they meant more or less the same direction and trying to fit together a geography using their different statements is doomed to failure. As far as I know there is nothing in the text that specifies the point at which "north" quit meaning what it did to say Nephi and means something very different. If the directions shifted in mid BOM unless this point can be identified trying to construct a geography on the basis of internal BOM textual clues is doomed to failure. This would seem to favor BOM geographies that do not depend on shifted directions.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[phaedrus ut]

Again, there is no doubt that the Mayan's knew how to determine precise cardinal directions. But it is quite on thing to say that a glyph for East means precisely 90

[thesometimesaint]

Markk:

Maybe I should put on my Psychiatric Social Worker hat. I only charge $75/hr.

[Brant Gardner]

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.

Contrary evidence isn't ignored. Sometimes, it has be to understood in context. In this case, you are correct that the Maya (and just about everyone) is capable of determining the cardinal directions. However, that still doesn't tell us that they are conceived in the same way across cultures. For example, the fact of placing the glyphs on the walls certainly orients them for us, but it doesn't thereby require that they understand directions in the + form that we do. Their orientation is still an X, but if you build a rectangle over the X, the walls will be oriented in the proper direction.

The inclusion of an arc in the definition of a direction doesn't alter the direction.

In the case of the shifting of orientation, there are two things to make sure you cover before you ask right question of the wrong theory. The first is that Poulsen's model doesn't skew directions, it is Sorenson's that does. Using Poulsen's understanding of directionality, much of Sorenson's model fits in the described directions. The difference is the expectation of the + versus the X.

The second problem in directions is that while everyone is capable of correctly placing the directions, they do so when they actively use something that tells them where they are. When people give generalized directions, they are less accurate for the cardinal positions. That tells us that architectural orientations, which can be very precise, do not necessarily translate into verbal instructions of directionality (the reasons that most of us are imprecise in our directions unless we have something to guide us).

[Nofear]

In my opinion Mesoamerica is 99% contrary evidence to the details of the Book of Mormon. ... So I will concede that it would be unreasonable from an apologetic standpoint to give proportionate or even equal weight to the contrary evidence because of its sheer volume.

I will grant that Mesoamerica is 99% contrary to the details of phaedrus ut's interpretation of the Book of Mormon. Alas, the sheer weight of volume is against your interpretation. Thankfully, we believers have a different interpretation.

I think Brant Gardner's reply is quite adequate to your claim of "crazy skewed coordinates".

[notHagoth7]

Thankfully, we believers have a different interpretation.

Please clarify. What is meant by "we believers"?

[jkfrost]

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?

If you look at the neck of land as seen in mid America

and think of how one would follow directions from the large area

above and below North and South America

one would need to travel east wand west to get there.

here is a link on some ideas having to do with direction:

http://www.bookofmormonlands.com/link%20fifteen.htm

[Nofear]

Please clarify. What is meant by "we believers"?

In this context, we could define "believers" as being those who hold that the Book of Mormon is an account of actual historical events and that most of the events of the Book of Mormon took place somewhere in Mesoamerica. Of course one does not have to be a "believer" as here defined to be a faithful latter-day saint.

[notHagoth7]

In this context, we could define "believers" as being those who hold that the Book of Mormon is an account of actual historical events and that most of the events of the Book of Mormon took place somewhere in Mesoamerica....

Then I take objection to your definition.

It's unnecessarily divisive.

[Calm]

Never mind, point already discussed.

[Calm]

Hipparchus knew that the precision of the North Celestial Pole was about 26,000 years well before the birth of Christ.

???

[wenglund]

In general aviation there are flight rules intented to avoid mid-air collisions. One of those rules covers cruising altitudes. This rule essentially designates all flights with a heading of 0 to 179 degrees, to be flying east, and depending upon whether the pilot is flying visually or by instruments, they are required to fly at ODD or ODD +500 elevations (3000, 3500, 5000, 5500, 7000, 7500, etc.); and all flights with a heading of 180 to 359 degrees, are consider to be flying west, and are required to fly at EVEN or EVEN +500 elevations (2000, 2500, 4000, 4500, 6000, 6500, etc.). (See; Complete Flight Rules and regulations)

In other words, a flight with a heading of due north (0 degrees), is considered to be heading east; whereas a flight with a heading of due south (180 degrees) is consider to be heading west.

Do you suppose the BoM critics ought to inform the FAA of this aggregious directioal error?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nofear]

Then I take objection to your definition. It's unnecessarily divisive.

Your point? Insert whatever appropriate term that you'd like to indicate for those that have a fundamentally different interpretation of the Book of Mormon and its compatibility with what we know about Mesoamerica than phaedrus ut. The set of such individuals need not be exclusive to the set of "believers" that I defined above.

[Nofear]

???

Not sure your question.

[notHagoth7]

Do you suppose the BoM critics ought to....

Why assume that those who don't agree with a flipped-compass approach are criticizing the Book of Mormon?

What is being criticized is something quite separate from the text itself.

[Calm]

Not sure your question.

Figured out what you were saying. Question is basically answered by placing a comma before "well before".

[notHagoth7]

Then I take objection to your definition.

It's unnecessarily divisive.

Your point?...

I'll let others answer, if they happen to see the inherent problem in such language.

If not, so be it.

[jkfrost]

Not sure your question.

Wow - Thanks - now lets see what way is UP?

Up is away from the earth and Down is towards the earth

so up is not always the same direction for everyone.

[wenglund]

Why assume that those who don't agree with a flipped-compass approach are criticizing the Book of Mormon?

Ironicaly, why assume that I did?

What is being criticized is something quite separate from the text itself.

Really?

I thought my use of winks and smileys would clue people in that my intent was humor.

Thnks, -Wade Englund-

[notHagoth7]

Ironicaly, why assume that I did?

I thought my use of winks and smileys would clue people in that my intent was humor.

Perhaps I am humor-impaired.

[William Schryver]

Of course, one of the most helpful of Joseph's translations comes in 2 Nephi 25:1-5, in the discussion of how we can't expect to understand the things of the Jews save it be that we are taught after the manner of the Jews. That is, we have to know the cultural context. And for the Nephites listening to Jesus speak in 3 Nephi are told that they "cannot understand all" his words, but that they have to go home and "prepare" their "minds" for the morrow. That is, Joseph's translations do not ask us to presume that there is such a thing as a "plain" meaning for every text. What makes any meaning seven seem to be plain is a function of how well prepared we are to interpret what we are looking at. The text never interprets itself. We always bring something to our readings. To mention such things is not to denigrate Joseph's role as a translator, nor to ignore our role in interpreting what we read, but to recognize such factors. That Joseph played a role as a translator. That any translation across languages and cultures brings along translation and cultural issues. If the Gift and Power of God negated such issues for translation, it is inconsistent that the Book of Mormon translation should expressly insist on the importance of studying relevant contexts, and preparing our minds.

"To a mouse, cheese is cheese. That is why mousetraps work."

Context can make a huge difference in meaning. For instance, if I say say, "I took something out of the boot," that might mean something very different to an American and an Englishman. The same ambiguity in meaning shows up if I say, "I sat on the bonnet." If I ask for a biscuit, an Englishman and and American might give me something very different in return.

One of the things we do know about the translation process is that it involved Joseph Smith's language, understanding, and weakness, and that is required that he "study it out in his mind." Something else we know is that he didn't always anticipate or understand what he was translating. For example, he had to be convinced that Jerusalem had walls. Someone who does not know English can look at any English passage where Nephi describes "words of plainess" and be completely baffled. We never just read. We read into. Words are data, and "All data are theory laden."

For another example, the FARMS Insights recently had an article talking about how the 1828 dictionary definition of "mark" could affect a reading of Jacob 4 on "looking beyond the mark." A few years ago, the Insights had another article (by me) describing how a comparison with Ezekiel's use of "mark" and the underlying Hebrew could affect our reading of the verse. What is interesting is that the two readings are inconsistent. Both contextualize differently, though both using language available to Joseph Smith. (Ezekiel's use is proximate as that offered in the recent Insights.) The question is, which meaning did Joseph Smith as a a divinely inspired translator want us to follow? Does raising the issue denigrate Joseph Smith as a translator with respect to a work as simple as "mark"?

In Mesoamerican thinking Northward describes a quadrant, not a vector. A quadrant is inherently less precise than a vector. And the "-ward" suffix occurs frequently in the Book of Mormon.

Another issue is who is writing the word on the plates, Nephi, or Mormon, and in what context? They surely weren't using Google maps to get their orientation.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

What Kevin said.

Well done! As always.

I myself have been fascinated lately with the philosophical ramifications of the relationship between data and theory.

This is an excerpt from a data file:

072510

[William Schryver]

In general aviation there are flight rules intented to avoid mid-air collisions. One of those rules covers cruising altitudes. This rule essentially designates all flights with a heading of 0 to 179 degrees, to be flying east, and depending upon whether the pilot is flying visually or by instruments, they are required to fly at ODD or ODD +500 elevations (3000, 3500, 5000, 5500, 7000, 7500, etc.); and all flights with a heading of 180 to 359 degrees, are consider to be flying west, and are required to fly at EVEN or EVEN +500 elevations (2000, 2500, 4000, 4500, 6000, 6500, etc.). (See; Complete Flight Rules and regulations)

In other words, a flight with a heading of due north (0 degrees), is considered to be heading east; whereas a flight with a heading of due south (180 degrees) is consider to be heading west.

Do you suppose the BoM critics ought to inform the FAA of this aggregious directioal error?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, Wade. I've learned something new today. I did not, previously, know that interesting little tidbit of aviation governance. Is this a universal (i.e. "worldwide") standard for both private and commercial aviation? What about the military?

[Cold Steel]

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"?

God was the translator, not the author.

If one looks at a map of Mesoamerica, it seems fairly obvious why the directions were given as they were. Some might see the "narrow neck" as running East-West, but had the waters encroached on those areas, it might have been true north and true south. Or, if all passages through the neck were through the "narrow pass," then one can understand the meaning of such terms as "land northward" or "land southward."

We have to assume the ancients knew the proper directions; however, because the entire tilt of the land was in a south eastward to north western direction, that the directions would have had to fit. It's these directions that really are good indicators that the Book of Mormon lands were in Mesoamerica, because they fit in the context.

.