Book Of Mormon Directions - North Is Northwest?

[Freedom]

The ancient Hebrews seemed to do a pretty good job with measures of length (cubit, span, handbreadth, finger), measures of capacity (homer, cor, lethech, ephah, omer, tenth part, bath, hin, kab, log), and measures of weight (talent, mina, shekel, beka, gerah). I suspect that the history of other ancient peoples would show false your claim that ancient people "had no real way to measure things."

I am not making any claims, this is what I have learned after studying the matter from qualified experts. Even in our recent past, a yard was not standarized. If you went to purchase fabric at the local retailer, you better have gone when the tallest employee was behind the desk. This was the case until well into the middle of the 20th century. The bible provides examples of specific sacred measurements, but standard measurements did not follow this rigor. The book of mormon is evedence of this.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Freedom

[Robert F. Smith]

Critics of Book of Mormon apologetics often ridicule the fact that, if the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is considered the "narrow neck of land" then Book of Mormon authors didn't have any sense of direction, since north would have to be northwest in order for the directions in the book to make any sense. That's exactly what many Mormon apologists have argued. Critics claim this is a ridiculous argument.

Good point. As a matter of fact, the Zapotec Indians living in that Isthmus use the term gya "up, above," for "north" (Handbook of Middle American Indians, V:294). We need to reflect anthropological reality when considering directionality.

And yet an interesting aspect of Montreal, Quebec is that locals refer to the cardinal directions in an identical manner. "North" is not north, but northwest, and all the other directions on the compass are accordingly skewed.

One quirk of common Montreal parlance is that directions (north, south, east, and west) along the street grid are sharply skewed relative to the actual compass directions. The St. Lawrence River is taken as flowing west to east (even though it flows north or northeast past the island), so that directions along streets parallel to the river are referred to as "west" and "east," and those along streets perpendicular to the river, "north" and "south." In much of Montreal, "north" is actually northwest, and in some areas such as Verdun and Pointe-aux-Trembles it is actually due west. "Montreal directions" are used in naming street addresses and describing bus routes, among other things. As a result of this discrepancy, Montreal has been called "the only city where the sun sets in the north."

The right and left banks of the Seine represent the north and south, respectively, and likewise show an orientation facing downriver -- west, toward the English Channel -- even though the Seine meanders. The same applies to the Nile, where one faces upriver (south), and the right and left banks are the east and west, respectively, despite the meandering of that great river.

Note the similar Classical use of Latin infra hos, "lower down than them," to mean "southward, downstream" (de Vaux, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, 202-203).

For Upper Egypt the Bible uses the term Pathros = Egyptian p3-t3-rsy "The Land Southward" (= neo-Assyrian cuneiform Paturisu; Isa 11:11/ = 2 Nephi 21:11), which is familiar from Book of Mormon usage (Alma 22:32, Ether 9:31-32), although Joseph Smith could have known nothing about such a correlation. Moreover, during the New Kingdom Egyptian empire, the high Egyptian official collecting taxes and representing Pharaoh in Syro-Palestine was termed "Overseer of Northern Lands," even though Syro-Palestine is not north but east-northeast of Egypt.

[Tarski]

You're thinking like a 21st century mathematician rather than an ancient priest.

Yes, and thereby drawing correct conclusions about what was or was not geometrically possible even then.

I don't think you got my point--perhaps because it is too obvious.

Priests measured time and space from observations at temples..

Fine

They measured space by facing the rising sun to the east, and marking the four directions from this "orientation" (literally, facing east) based instinctive human directions, front, back, right, left (and up and down).

And if you think about it, the result of this would be exactly the same no matter where in the general area the temple were to be located. As I said, chosing a center by itself does nothing to help determine directions.

Something has to break the symmetry, whether it is the shape of the temple itself or a reference to something else such as the sun.

Imagine that I wake you up in the middle of the night having taken you in your sleep to an unknown location in a vast flat desert.

It is night and cloudy.

I pound a round peg into the ground and declare it to be the center. It is the "temple" so to speak.

Now from this choice of center, can you make a principled choice of directional norm? Forget about which way is really north by modern standards. What direction will you choose to be "north" and how is your choice at all motivated or determined by the mere choice of a center (the peg I pounded into the ground)?

The peg didn't help and that was just as true then as it is now as a matter of geometric necessity.

again, you said:

They measured space by facing the rising sun to the east,

This is the key for orientation in your example, not the center.

Since the sun is so far away, a different location for the temple would have made no measurable difference for that part of the equation-the directional part.

Of course another possiblilty is that it could have been two terrestrial markers that fixed direction; for example, the temple and a nearby hill or lake.

Of course, once the orientation is in place by whatever means, the choice of center does makes a difference in terms of where distances are measure from--a metric reference. I can then say things like it is one hundred steps to the north and fifty steps to the east of the temple. But the location of the temple itself was not what defined the meaning of north and east.

Hopefully this is all quite obvious and makes no difference to what anthropologists or historians really say about the role of a temple in helping to mark out the lived space of an ancient people.

It was just the way you phrased it, emphasizing choice of center, that seemed to create a puzzling impression---since it is not the choice of center, qua center, that provides a standard for direction (it just can't).

[LeSellers]

Hawaii is also the most southern state, and Alaska is the most western.

Alaska is also the most eastern state, as a very large number of its islands lie west of 180° and even Hawai`i doesn't extend much beyond 163°W.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/nsewusa.htm

[LeSellers]

http://www.worldatla...age/nsewusa.htm

Not sure why this shows up, because it says just what I noted: Alaska is the most eastern, western and (obviously) northern state in USmerica.

(However, it does not get the new year, or day, before Maine, because the International Dateline was "bent" to include the whole state in the Aleutian-Hawai`ian time zone. Guam is the first USmerican territory to greet the rising sun every day—naval ships excluded.)

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

How far east is west?

[LeSellers]

How far east is west?

It's east at 180°, going west. At 0° (the prime meridian), or even 179° east, still going west, everything behind you is east, everything ahead of you is west, until you get back to 180°.

There is a simple test for Air Force navigators: if, by going east, you "lose" time, even getting back to one day "in the past", why do we not continue to go back in time by continuing the trip?" Only those who recognize the need for a "date line" can make good navigators.

Your question reminds me of the Star Trek episode where he enemy told his crew that they had to go "east of the such-and-such a star". There is no "east" in space: it's a surface phenomenon and, unlike "north" and "south", is relative, not absolute.

Lehi

[Tarski]

Your question reminds me of the Star Trek episode where he enemy told his crew that they had to go "east of the such-and-such a star".

That's funny.

I remember that in the original Star Trek, there always seemed to be an assumed sense of up and down. Whenever they met an alien space ship it seemed to be similarly oriented as if even the aliens knew not to fly around up side down or tilted -LOL.

There is no "east" in space: it's a surface phenomenon and, unlike "north" and "south", is relative, not absolute.

Actually, I think north and south are also usually thought of as surface concepts which is why it makes no sense to talk about there being anything south of the south pole.

(by analogy, in standard big bang cosmology, there is no sense in asking what happened "before" the big bang.)

[LeSellers]

I think north and south are also usually thought of as surface concepts which is why it makes no sense to talk about there being anything south of the south pole.

"Northward" is toward that point where no further travel "north" is possible in the context you're working in. There is an "absolute north" on earth: the north pole. But all rotating planets (all of them as far as I know, rotate, but ???) have a "north" and a "south". North is the pole which, when viewed from "above", rotates counter- (or anti-) clockwise—the south pole turns clockwise.

The galaxies also rotate, and their "north poles" turn counter-clockwise. No further northward travel is possible in, for example, the Milky Way galaxy (redundant, BTW: "galaxy" means "milky") when you reach the axis of rotation and are barely "in" the galaxy, just as on earth with its north pole.

I understand it is the same for the universe, as well.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

Imagine that I wake you up in the middle of the night having taken you in your sleep to an unknown location in a vast flat desert.

I'd be really ticked off.

It is night and cloudy.

I pound a round peg into the ground and declare it to be the center. It is the "temple" so to speak.

Now from this choice of center, can you make a principled choice of directional norm? Forget about which way is really north by modern standards. What direction will you choose to be "north" and how is your choice at all motivated or determined by the mere choice of a center (the peg I pounded into the ground)?

I'd say "This is stupid and serves no purpose. You dragged me here to play games? I'm going back to sleep until the morning when we can figure out where the sun is".

[mfbukowski]

I don't think you got my point--perhaps because it is too obvious.

I don't think you got his. He never said you found the "center" by use of the technique he described- all he said about "centers" was that for ancient cultures, wherever they were was the "center"- and then he cited the Chinese Middle Kingdom. The technique he described to was to find directions from the center, not the center.

Edited January 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Tarski]

I don't think you got his. He never said you found the "center" by use of the technique he described- all he said about "centers" was that for ancient cultures, wherever they were was the "center"- and then he cited the Chinese Middle Kingdom. The technique he described to was to find directions from the center, not the center.

So you don't get it huh? LOL

And you think of yourself as a philosopher type?

Look, the existence or establishment of a temple sets a center but setting a center does not pick out a notion of direction. There is still a full circle of possible choices of "north".

The technique he described to was to find directions from the center, not the center.

What?

The issue was never about HOW to find a center. And, what in the world do you mean by "directions from the center" ??

If all you have established is a center, then all you have is "away from" and "toward" the center. This provides no orienting frame for space, nothing like a notion of north. One cannot say, oh "north means above the temple" since that begs the question of what "above" is supposed to me. The determination of a preferred direction "something to play the role of 'north" takes something more than a center.

I'd say "This is stupid and serves no purpose. You dragged me here to play games?

The value of a simple thought experiment is beyond you? Hilarious. The whole of relativity was initiated by a simple Einstein thought experiment which involved imagining travelling on a light wave. Ridiculous huh?

Just think, if you had followed through with the experiment instead of arrogantly supposing that I was only playing games, you may have gotten the insight. But instead, you remain in a state of not getting it.

Unless Bill Hamlin is far less intelligent than I think he is (and I am supposing that he is intelligent) then he has already gotten my point and probably realizes that his understanding of the role of temples, when spelled out in detail, is not threated by my clarification but is after all consistant with it.

But perhaps it really is the case that math/physics forces the teasing out of important spatial conceptual distinctions that aren't apparent or obvious to some people (like you?).

But I doubt it.

Like I said, at this point he must have realized that what I am saying is true and could only possibly complain that he never intended anything that contradicts it and knew it all along (which could be true).

Edited January 4, 2012 by Tarski

[mfbukowski]

And, what in the world do you mean by "directions from the center" ??

Now from this choice of center, can you make a principled choice of directional norm?

Tarski Tarski what am I going to do with you?

You are such a sweetheart.

I was answering your question using your terms. Yes, the center is arbitrary. And no, you cannot establish directions "from" a center, but that is the way you used the word.

In Salt Lake it was where Brigham Young punched his cane in the ground. But "North" was established by another method- compass I suppose in this case, not the sun. People who see themselves "at" the center- like in China for example, establish directions however they establish them according to references "from" the center. At least that is how I presumed you were using the phrase "from this choice of center can you make a principled choice of directional norm?"

Sure you can, once you have some reference points. But here you dragged me out to the desert on a foggy night with no references. Good Night- wait til the sun comes up. Choosing a direction would be pointless.

I have tried repeatedly to be nice to you- I like discussing things with you- but you always seem to be a jerk. What's up with that?

Edited January 4, 2012 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

That's funny.

I remember that in the original Star Trek, there always seemed to be an assumed sense of up and down. Whenever they met an alien space ship it seemed to be similarly oriented as if even the aliens knew not to fly around up side down or tilted -LOL.

This is one of the sillinesses of a lot of sci-fi. Star Wars tried to explain it by saying that while ship commanders could cope with concepts like above and below they needed an up/down reference so when ships met they would roll so "up" was the same direction for both of them. Star Trek was even funnier. In Wrath of Khan Spock tries to point out that Khan's weakness was that he fought in two dimensions so they send the ship "down" and then back "up" to surprise him. Spock delivers this insight despite the Enterprise spending all its time fighting in two dimensions too. You'd think they'd teach more advanced concepts at StarFleet Academy......

I assume that the Book of Mormon concept of direction is based on a hypothetical temple built with a "northern" side that is not true north. Jewish temples were rectangular and the model Nephi used (Temple of Solomon) could easily have its four sides become the four directions.

[Tarski]

I was answering your question using your terms.

I don't think you were. Might you have been hung up on two senses of the word "from"---one sense being spatial and the other meaning "by means of" as in "by means of a choice of center"?

In any case, not a single thing I said was incorrect so what are you disagreeing with?

Yes, the center is arbitrary. And no, you cannot establish directions "from" a center,

Then you agree after all? So what point are you making?

In Salt Lake it was where Brigham Young punched his cane in the ground. But "North" was established by another method- compass I suppose in this case, not the sun.

right

People who see themselves "at" the center- like in China for example, establish directions however they establish them according to references "from" the center.

You are confusing two things here.

At least that is how I presumed you were using the phrase "from this choice of center can you make a principled choice of directional norm?"

??

Again, the answer is that one cannot make a principled choice of directional norm simply on the basis of a choice of center.

Sure you can, once you have some reference points.

Huh? LOL

It is as if I point out that one cannot determine a line using a single point and you answer by saying "sure you can once you chose a second point". (ummm OK)

But here you dragged me out to the desert on a foggy night with no references. Good Night- wait til the sun comes up. Choosing a direction would be pointless.

You do realize that the result of using the sun to determine a special direction (a north) would be the same no matter where in the desert the center is placed--- right?? In that case, why mention the temple at all if the question is how direction is to be specified?

I am trying to disambiguate the role of spatial origin from that of choice of directions. They are independent.

In fact, the symmetry group of the plane is a sort of product of the group of translations (moving the origin) and the group of rotations (changing to a new basis of directions).

Remember, the issue in the BoM was a question of direction (what was north and so on). Wasn't it?

Indeed, one could specify a perpendicular set of standard directions (n/s) using the sun or something else and then afterwards build the temple (set the zero point) anywhere one pleases without affecting the directional scheme.

I have tried repeatedly to be nice to you- I like discussing things with you- but you always seem to be a jerk. What's up with that?

I dunno. I was thinking the same thing. You rushed in here to shoot me down with the rather dismissive and rude comment

"This is stupid and serves no purpose. You dragged me here to play games? " (Which missed the point as well)

So exactly who was being a jerk?

Here is a clue; first make sure you understand exactly what I am addressing before you start shooting. Asking for clarification would be a start.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Tarski

[mfbukowski]

Lighten up a little. You are coming off very tightly wound- relax- you will live longer!

I don't think you were. Might you have been hung up on two senses of the word "from"---one sense being spatial and the other meaning "by means of" as in "by means of a choice of center"?

In any case, not a single thing I said was incorrect so what are you disagreeing with?

I was using THIS sense of "from"- emphasis added:

Now from this choice of center, can you make a principled choice of directional norm?

Those are your words.

Then you agree after all? So what point are you making?

Of course we agree how could we NOT? As you said yourself your point was "obvious". The point I was making was that it WAS obvious so I made it into a bit of a joke about you dragging me on a camping trip and waking me up in the middle of the night. I don't care if you believe me about that or not. You just took it too seriously and kinda went wacko there dude!

Again, the answer is that one cannot make a principled choice of directional norm simply on the basis of a choice of center.

Of course- it is only a point.

You do realize that the result of using the sun to determine a special direction (a north) would be the same no matter where in the desert the center is placed--- right?? In that case, why mention the temple at all if the question is how direction is to be specified?

Of course- that is totally obvious. Why are you even bothering making that point?

I am trying to disambiguate the role of spatial origin from that of choice of directions. They are independent.

Duh.

Indeed, one could specify a perpendicular set of standard directions (n/s) using the sun or something else and then afterwards build the temple (set the zero point) anywhere one pleases without affecting the directional scheme.

Of course.

I dunno. I was thinking the same thing. You rushed in here to shoot me down with the rather dismissive and rude comment

"This is stupid and serves no purpose. You dragged me here to play games? " (Which missed the point as well)

So exactly who was being a jerk?

No, that is not what I said. That may be what you THOUGHT I said, but I was joking with you because you supposedly woke me up in the middle of the night to make an obvious point, remember?

Here is a clue; first make sure you understand exactly what I am addressing before you start shooting. Asking for clarification would be a start.

Here's a clue for you: don't assume TBM's are idiots.

[Tarski]

Of course- that is totally obvious. Why are you even bothering making that point?

Here is why:

Directions in the BOM are not absolute planetary and continental. As with all ancient direction systems, they are based on the center point of the temple. N/S/E/W are directions measured from the temple as sacred center. (The old saying "All roads lead to Rome" reflects precisely this ancient mentality.) When you understand this, BOM directions make perfect sense.

So, as I see it, the location of the center (temple) could not have been the salient reason why north was northwest in the BoM and this was the real issue brought up by the OP. The temple could have been anywhere in the area and the reference to a celestial body such as the sun would have led to the same result about direction whatever it was (northwest or not).

So even though my point it is and was obvious, we still have the above mysterious quote from the expert. It might look like faith promoting obfuscation to some people, but I didn't go down that road. I simply made the observation and given the above quote, why not? I invited amplification on the topic.

And notice that the response was not that it was obvious or any such thing. I was accused of thinking like a 20th century mathematician.

Since this comment missed the mark, it made sense to go on about it (even though the point is so obvious as you now assure me-LOL).

What should I have done? I think I was polite and all that. What made you insert yourself into the conversation? It sounded like anything but agreement (until now).

Edited January 4, 2012 by Tarski

[mfbukowski]

I do not need to speak for Bill obviously but what my understanding of what he is saying is that in ancient times, the location of the temple WAS the reference point from which directions were plotted.

I remember a visit to Honolulu - Diamond Head was THE reference point for everything since it was visible from everywhere in the city.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/figuring-out-hawaiian-directions.html

Figuring Out Hawaiian Directions

Leave your compass at home — islanders have a different sense of direction than mainlanders do. Although locals do think of the islands as having north shores and south shores, west coasts and east coasts, seldom will anybody direct you by using the most common directional terms.

Instead, they'll send you either makai (ma-kai), a directional meaning toward the sea, or mauka (mow-kah), meaning toward the mountains. Because each island is basically a volcano with a single coastal road circling it, those two terms are often enough to do the trick.

When they don't suffice, locals are likely to invoke relative terms rather than "north," "south," "east," or "west." If you're standing in Kapaa on Kauai's east shore, for example, locals tell you to head toward Lihue if they want you to go south. In Honolulu, people use Diamond Head when they mean to the east (in the direction of the world-famous crater called Diamond Head), and Ewa (ee-va) when they mean to the west (in the direction of the town called Ewa, beyond Pearl Harbor).

So if you ask an islander for directions on Oahu, you're likely to hear something like this: "Turn left and go 2 miles Diamond Head [east], turn at the light and go 2 blocks makai [toward the sea], and then turn at the stop light. Go 2 more blocks and turn Ewa [west]; the address you want is on the mauka [mountain] side of the street."

So my understanding is that this is what Bill was talking about- the temple was the reference point just as in this story Diamond Head is the reference point.

Yes, you need other reference points too- here they are toward the mountain or the sea. But if you are living in a small localized area, that is all you need to get around.

I knew a person who was intellectually challenged, and could not understand the usual compass points, so I taught her that North was toward the small mountains, East was toward the big mountains, South was toward the ocean and West was not well described except as where the wind usually came from. I could give her directions like "Go toward the Big Mountains two blocks, then toward the little mountains four blocks" etc, and in the little town that was her world, that worked just fine. The sun moved around too much, so that was useless but with landmarks which were pretty much always visible, she was fine.

So I think what Bill was saying was that directions in ancient times were just like those which use Diamond Head as a reference, but in this case, not even NSEW is used, but "up the mountain" or "toward the ocean".

Edited January 4, 2012 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

I do not need to speak for Bill obviously but what my understanding of what he is saying is that in ancient times, the location of the temple WAS the reference point from which directions were plotted.

I remember a visit to Honolulu - Diamond Head was THE reference point for everything since it was visible from everywhere in the city.

http://www.dummies.c...directions.html

So my understanding is that this is what Bill was talking about- the temple was the reference point just as in this story Diamond Head is the reference point.

Yes, you need other reference points too- here they are toward the mountain or the sea. But if you are living in a small localized area, that is all you need to get around.

I knew a person who was intellectually challenged, and could not understand the usual compass points, so I taught her that North was toward the small mountains, East was toward the big mountains, South was toward the ocean and West was not well described except as where the wind usually came from. I could give her directions like "Go toward the Big Mountains two blocks, then toward the little mountains four blocks" etc, and in the little town that was her world, that worked just fine. The sun moved around too much, so that was useless but with landmarks which were pretty much always visible, she was fine.

So I think what Bill was saying was that directions in ancient times were just like those which use Diamond Head as a reference, but in this case, not even NSEW is used, but "up the mountain" or "toward the ocean".

The problem with that is the Temple can't be North, West, East, or South if it is the center. You could argue that geographical features led to the four compass points being skewed from the 'true' directions but the Temple wouldn't be one of those features unless some architectural features of the temple (walls for example) corresponded with the new directions.

[mfbukowski]

The problem with that is the Temple can't be North, West, East, or South if it is the center. You could argue that geographical features led to the four compass points being skewed from the 'true' directions but the Temple wouldn't be one of those features unless some architectural features of the temple (walls for example) corresponded with the new directions.

I think it is more that WE can be or our destination can be some direction and distance from the temple, like 5 miles northeast or a mile Ewa and 5 blocks mauka from Diamond Head.

It's not about where the reference point is- I think that is taken for granted because everyone knows that. It is where WE are in relation to the reference point, using whatever directional definitions we establish.

I hope Tarski likes that grammar. Really that is the way it is in Salt Lake and other Mormon cities - 4300 S 500 W is 43 blocks south and 5 blocks west of the temple.

So at that point defined above, we would be Southwest of the temple, and if someone asked what direction the temple was, we would say "Northeast", which would be the correct direction to travel to get there.

I don't know why this seems so complicated- am I missing something?

[frankenstein]

Directions in the BOM are not absolute planetary and continental. As with all ancient direction systems, they are based on the center point of the temple. N/S/E/W are directions measured from the temple as sacred center. (The old saying "All roads lead to Rome" reflects precisely this ancient mentality.) When you understand this, BOM directions make perfect sense.

Where was the Temple from which the people of Lehi based their directions.

CFR, that "all ancient direction systems" were based on the center point of "the temple".

CFR that the people of Lehi would have used the same directional system as the People of Israel.

I am aware that the Children of Jacob believe Israel was the center of the Universe, but I have not read that Romans believed Rome was the center of the Universe or Center of the world, and given that Romans had many Temples it is hard to believe they based their directions off "the (singular) Tempel" much less the Temple of the Hebrews.

[LeSellers]

If we draw a line and label it (left to right) "West-East", then anything above that line is "north", irrespective of where along or below the original line one stands.

I can easily go south from several points in the "lower 48" and arrive in Canada, which is, by most people's understanding, "north" of USmerica.

We moderns traditionally, but not universally, believe that north or south is absolute. but it is not so even for us. Why would anyone insist that the ancients adhere to a modern concept that we do not use consistently ourselves?

Lehi

Edited January 4, 2012 by LeSellers

[Kevin Christensen]

I've found Larry Poulson's 2008 discussion of Mesoamerican directional concepts relative to the Book of Mormon here to be valuable:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[mfbukowski]

Bill

Another way of stating this is that all directions are based on me and my perception rather than a fixed geocentric model of the world. Ancient cultures based directions on the movement of the sun and local elevation relative to their immediate location. This was especially true of Mesoamerican cultures as pointed out in a recent paper by Hopkins and Josserand.

"Directions and Partitions in Maya World View," in aFestschrift for Terrence Kaufman, edited by Thomas Smith Stark andRoberto Zavala. New York: John Benjamins. (J. K. Josserand and N.A. Hopkins). 22 pp. manuscript, 5 figures.

Larry P

And so we come full circle.