Directions In The Book Of Mormon

[livy111us]

Brants lecture from this years FAIR conference on BOM directions has just been posted on the FAIR website. It is quite a good lecture on the topic.

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-from-the-east-to-the-west-the-problem-of-directions-in-the-book-of-mormon

[Brant Gardner]

One of the things I am finding as a result of the questions is that I haven't been clear on how people conceive/use such directions. Without handy compasses on the rearview mirrors of their automobiles, the ancient Mesoamericans determined orientation against the sun. Hence "north" was on the left hand of the sun if you were facing it (some groups use left for south, it was a cultural preference for facing the sun or having your back to it). At any time, then, "north" was anything oriented to that side of the path of the sun. When that is translated into places, it can cover a pretty wide range.

When they depicted such things, the rectified the angles in some cases, and when they oriented main streets in their cities, they would align them to a more "perfect" east which would be the center point of the range of the sun along the horizon--or right were we would see "east."

In other words, they could located something where we would see cardinal directions, but they also located things in a much wider area than we would assign to north. Using the sun's path at the vernal equinox gives you pretty much the "skewed north" that Sorenson used. At that point in time, and i that descriptive system, it is a perfectly reasonable north.

[morgan.deane]

Brants lecture from this years FAIR conference on BOM directions has just been posted on the FAIR website. It is quite a good lecture on the topic.

http://www.fairlds.o...-book-of-mormon

I'm glad they put out a transcript of this so quickly. I had trouble following all of Brant's arguments orally so I look forward to reading it a few times.

[J Green]

Brant,

As always, fascinating presentation. I think that the Andean culture had a similar way of looking at things, like associating north with the northen location of the sun at the June solstice (despite their being in the southern hemisphere), and referencing directions against the highest mountain (the origin of the sun) so that North was "up" and south was "down" the mountain. For the Incas, directions and calendrical practices started in the center of the Temple of the Sun in Cuzco and branched out towards the horizon on lines of the sun's path on it journey between the solstices. While a different and later culture, it sounds similar in some aspects to that of mesoamerica.

I particularly liked your ideas behind the Desolation/Bountiful contrast with north/south, right/left. What about rainy/dry season as a deliniation here? Would there be a left/right divide between the June and December solstices there might be a dry season/rainy season distinction that might play into Bountiful/Desolation?

Cheers

Edited August 6, 2012 by J Green

[ERayR]

One of the things I am finding as a result of the questions is that I haven't been clear on how people conceive/use such directions. Without handy compasses on the rearview mirrors of their automobiles, the ancient Mesoamericans determined orientation against the sun. Hence "north" was on the left hand of the sun if you were facing it (some groups use left for south, it was a cultural preference for facing the sun or having your back to it). At any time, then, "north" was anything oriented to that side of the path of the sun. When that is translated into places, it can cover a pretty wide range.

When they depicted such things, the rectified the angles in some cases, and when they oriented main streets in their cities, they would align them to a more "perfect" east which would be the center point of the range of the sun along the horizon--or right were we would see "east."

In other words, they could located something where we would see cardinal directions, but they also located things in a much wider area than we would assign to north. Using the sun's path at the vernal equinox gives you pretty much the "skewed north" that Sorenson used. At that point in time, and i that descriptive system, it is a perfectly reasonable north.

Brant just started to read your presentation and ran across this: "There was no universal center. Each city was its own world–its own center. Each family home replicated the world and placed that family at its center." It struck me that is a very Book of Mormon outlook. First in Lehi and his family then the addition of Ishmael to expand the family and later in the Book of Mormon the different city accounts (Zarahemla, etc) and finally as they have conflicts they enumerate who is on their side by city.

[Brant Gardner]

First in Lehi and his family then the addition of Ishmael to expand the family and later in the Book of Mormon the different city accounts (Zarahemla, etc) and finally as they have conflicts they enumerate who is on their side by city.

Yes. Another reason for this is that there was no state. There were cities that had relationships but the most important entity was one's own city (think Athens/Sparta). There was a king, but a king over a city. In some cases among the Lamanites, there was a king over kings (father of Lamoni was such an over-king).

[ERayR]

Yes. Another reason for this is that there was no state. There were cities that had relationships but the most important entity was one's own city (think Athens/Sparta). There was a king, but a king over a city. In some cases among the Lamanites, there was a king over kings (father of Lamoni was such an over-king).

It certainly gives the Maya a Book of Mormon Flavor or the Book of Mormon a Mayan flavor.

[JAHS]

When we talk about going up to salt lake city from St George we are refering to a North/South direction.

I assume when the Book of Mormon talks about going "down" or "up" to some place, they are talking about elevation. For example:

"Neither durst they march down against the city of Zarahemla; neither durst they cross the head of Sidon, over to the city of Nephihah." (Alma 56:25)

And the sons of Mosiah who were in Zarahemla went up to the land of Nephi:

"And it came to pass that they did plead with their father many days that they might go up to the land of Nephi." (Mos 28:5)

So Zarahemla is at a lower elevation than the Land of Nephi.

When they say they are going "over to" a place, it must be to the same relative elevation to where they are now:

"Now this man went over to the land of Jershon also, to preach these things among the people of Ammon, who were once the people of the Lamanites." (Alma 30:19)

"Now as I said, Alma having seen all these things, therefore he took Amulek and came over to the land of Zarahemla, and took him to his own house, and did administer unto him in his tribulations, and strengthened him in the Lord." (Alma 15:18)

[ERayR]

When we talk about going up to salt lake city from St George we are refering to a North/South direction.

I assume when the Book of Mormon talks about going "down" or "up" to some place, they are talking about elevation. For example:

"Neither durst they march down against the city of Zarahemla; neither durst they cross the head of Sidon, over to the city of Nephihah." (Alma 56:25)

And the sons of Mosiah who were in Zarahemla went up to the land of Nephi:

"And it came to pass that they did plead with their father many days that they might go up to the land of Nephi." (Mos 28:5)

So Zarahemla is at a lower elevation than the Land of Nephi.

When they say they are going "over to" a place, it must be to the same relative elevation to where they are now:

"Now this man went over to the land of Jershon also, to preach these things among the people of Ammon, who were once the people of the Lamanites." (Alma 30:19)

"Now as I said, Alma having seen all these things, therefore he took Amulek and came over to the land of Zarahemla, and took him to his own house, and did administer unto him in his tribulations, and strengthened him in the Lord." (Alma 15:18)

I don't see how it is evident that up, down over or across have to be elevations. Even with the way we mark directions we often say we are going up north or down south or it is over to the east or west or across the county, state or country. Those terms do not mean a change in elevation even to us.

[JAHS]

I don't see how it is evident that up, down over or across have to be elevations. Even with the way we mark directions we often say we are going up north or down south or it is over to the east or west or across the county, state or country. Those terms do not mean a change in elevation even to us.

This was an idea that John Sorenson mentioned in his book "Mormon's Map" :

"The expressions 'up,' 'down,' and 'over,' when used in a geographical context, refer to elevation"

I supose that depending on the context it could also mean compass type directions.

[ERayR]

This was an idea that John Sorenson mentioned in his book "Mormon's Map" :

"The expressions 'up,' 'down,' and 'over,' when used in a geographical context, refer to elevation"

I supose that depending on the context it could also mean compass type directions.

I grew up with up and down signifying north and south and over could be either east or west. To go east or west was "over east/west of here". Down south could be a few miles to across the continent in a southerly direction. Down south to me was always anything south of Idaho from Pacific to Atlantic. Up North was anything north of Idaho from coast to coast.

[USU78]

I don't see how it is evident that up, down over or across have to be elevations. Even with the way we mark directions we often say we are going up north or down south or it is over to the east or west or across the county, state or country. Those terms do not mean a change in elevation even to us.

True . . . sometimes it's metaphorical or metaphysical: for example, Provo is "down" from just about everywhere . . . "I'm going down to Provo"

[ERayR]

True . . . sometimes it's metaphorical or metaphysical: for example, Provo is "down" from just about everywhere . . . "I'm going down to Provo"

I grew up that even the next town over was up(north) down(south) or over(east/west0.

[USU78]

I grew up that even the next town over was up(north) down(south) or over(east/west0.

When we lived in California, we went "back" to Utah. When we got to Utah it was "out" to California (Vallejo), and it was "over" to Colorado." It was "back" to Missouri. It was always "down" to LA/La Mirada/Tijuana" from both Utah and Vallejo. It has always been "up" to Logan; "down" to Salt Lake; "down" to Provo from every place I've lived. Idaho? "Up!" Boise? "Out."

[Vance]

I grew up with up and down signifying north and south and over could be either east or west. To go east or west was "over east/west of here". Down south could be a few miles to across the continent in a southerly direction. Down south to me was always anything south of Idaho from Pacific to Atlantic. Up North was anything north of Idaho from coast to coast.

In the small town I grew up in the creek ran in a generally south direction, so "up" was generally north and "down" was generally south.

[Brant Gardner]

I particularly liked your ideas behind the Desolation/Bountiful contrast with north/south, right/left. What about rainy/dry season as a deliniation here? Would there be a left/right divide between the June and December solstices there might be a dry season/rainy season distinction that might play into Bountiful/Desolation?

I don't know of any connection between rainy/dry and specific locations. The whole region has a rainy and dry season, so I doubt that gives us a desolation/bountiful.

[Brant Gardner]

I grew up that even the next town over was up(north) down(south) or over(east/west0.

These are the typical terms, and borrowed from our convention of having north at the top of the map. Ancient maps were oriented to the East (and the origin of "orient/oriented").

Without a mapping convention, one does expect that up and down refer to topography, as there was no "map" to use for any other type of reference.

[cursor]

This was an idea that John Sorenson mentioned in his book "Mormon's Map" :

"The expressions 'up,' 'down,' and 'over,' when used in a geographical context, refer to elevation"

That is correct. There is a very consistent use of ups and downs (elevations) when referencing relationships between Book of Mormon cities and lands.

From Mormon's Map, chapter 4:

What were the main variations in elevation in the land southward?

The land of Zarahemla was well above sea level; Mormon’s basic sketch of the geography says that from the first landing place of the people of Zarahemla, which would have been at sea level, “they came from there up into the south wilderness” (Alma 22:30–31), where Mosiah1 found them (see Omni 1:13–14). That is a fairly obvious but little noted point; the river Sidon at the city of Zarahemla was not far distant from its headwaters, so it still had a long way to flow—downhill—before it reached the sea (see Alma 22:27; 50:11; 56:25).

When we compare what the record says about the two major segments of the land southward, a major topographic contrast comes to light. The Nephite possessions in the land of Zarahemla are distinctly and consistently said to be lower in elevation than Lamanite-occupied highland Nephi. The book of Omni first shows this when it reports the Nephites’ discovery of the people of Zarahemla: “Mosiah, . . . being warned of the Lord that he should flee out of the land of Nephi, and as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord . . . , came down into the land which is called the land of Zarahemla” (1:12–13). Shortly after, “a certain number . . . went up into the wilderness to return to the land of Nephi” (Omni 1:27). This relationship is reaffirmed dozens of times. (The pattern of referring to topography in terms of “up” and “down” had, of course, been manifested from the beginning of Nephi1’s record; his family went “down” from the Jerusalem area to near the shores of the Red Sea [1 Nephi 2:5], and he and his brothers later returned “up” to Jerusalem [1 Nephi 3:9].)

The difference in elevation between the two major territorial divisions—Zarahemla of the Nephites and Nephi of the Lamanites—is again shown in the account of a party who went to the land of Nephi to find out what had happened to the people of Zeniff. Zeniff’s group had been gone for decades, and now the search party “knew not the course they should travel in the wilderness to go up . . . therefore they wandered many days in the wilderness” (Mosiah 7:4). The sons of Mosiah2 and their companions faced similar hardship traversing the same route (see Alma 17:5–

. The abrupt topographic contrast travelers faced led the Nephite writers to use the specific expression “narrow strip of wilderness” (Alma 22:27) to label this transitional stretch. The “head [waters] of the river Sidon” lay within this rugged mountain band (Alma 22:29; 43:22).

The primary land of Nephi was also consistently “up” in relation to the seas on either side. The east sea formed one boundary for the general land of Nephi (see Alma 22:27). From the Lamanite capital, the city of Nephi, the Lamanite army came down to attack the city of Moroni beside the east sea (see Alma 51:11, 22). On the western side of the land of Nephi a progression of lands staircased from the coast upward: from the Lamanite king’s unnamed homeland near the sea, to Shemlon, to Shilom, and then to the local land of Nephi (see Mosiah 20:7, 9; 24:1–2). Highland Nephi remained the Lamanite base from which they launched most of their attacks on the Nephites from the days of King Benjamin (see Omni 1:24) to the time of Mormon five hundred years later (see Mormon 1:10; 3:7). Naturally enough, the topography of the uplands of the land of Nephi was broken. Alma

1

and his party were able to escape discovery for a number of years in a mountain valley that they called the land of Helam. Eventually they were discovered by an army of Lamanite soldiers who could not find their way back to their base at the city of Nephi. Wandering about, these lost Lamanites accidentally stumbled on two isolated peoples: the Amulonites, who also did not know how to get to Nephi, and then Alma

1

’s folks.

A strip of wilderness paralleled the west sea coast all the way from the land of first inheritance on the southerly extremity, where Lehi1 and his family first landed, to near the narrow neck (see Alma 22:28–29). Forested coastal lowlands as well as a mountain range must have constituted that wilderness. That area was apparently not occupied by Nephites, for the record tells of no settlements there. They considered it occupied only by barbaric Lamanites who had filtered up from the south, and even when the Lamanites living there were eliminated (see Alma 50:11), the Nephites failed to settle that western strip seriously until near the end of their history. The text names no Nephite lands there until Mormon’s day, when the retreating Nephites occupied a land called Joshua at the northerly end of the west strip (see Mormon 2:6).

—John L. Sorenson

Edited August 6, 2012 by cursor

[ANACO]

Your directions can easily be refuted, using your own map:

http://www.fairlds.o...-book-of-mormon

Notice how the River Sidon (Grijalva) flows to our current cardinal north. Not your "Mesoamerica north".

So your directions are only limited to explain away the direction of the Isthmus, not its rivers.

Kind regards.

Edited August 6, 2012 by ANACO

[poulsenll]

The Grijalva river that flows through the land of Zarahemla as shown on that map flows northwest, not cardinal nlorth. The Usamacinta also shown on the map flows more near but not exactly toward cardinal north.

A careful view of the Grijalva in Google Earth shows that it has segments that flow north and other segments that flow northwest. No real river flows exclusively in one direction.

Larry P

[cursor]

In spite of the many reasons that recommend this model, there is one major problem with the correlation. Deane G. Matheny, a lawyer with a Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of Utah, explains:

The most fundamental geographical problem associated with Sorenson’s model has to do with issues of directionality. . . . In order for his model to fit the geography of Mesoamerica, one must assume that the Nephites had a system of directions with cardinal directions skewed “45 degrees or more” off of the usually observed cardinals. . . . In other words, the whole directional card must be shifted more than 60 degrees to the west for this model to fit the geography of the chosen area. Otherwise, as Vogel has pointed out, the land north will be on the west, and the south on the east, and so forth. . . . Making this shift in directions creates its own set of problems, however, because in such a Nephite directional system the sun would come up in the south and set in the north.

These are serious considerations. How could Nephites possibly think that the sun would come upon in the south and set in the north? They couldn’t. Yet we have a geographic correlation that fits both real world geography and cultural history remarkably well–except when we come to the terms north, south, east, and west.4 I propose that if Mesoamerica is a good fit for the Book of Mormon’s real world geography, then information about Mesoamerica may be used to reexamine and refine the nature of that fit.5 In short, an understanding of the Mesoamerican directional system offers an explanation for the way that Book of Mormon directions correspond to that geography, without recourse to an artificial shift in the directions.

As I told you in person, Brandt, I really enjoyed your presentation at the FAIR Conference this last week. Upon returning home, I've been digging through my father's writings on the subject of directional systems.

Within the nested Matheny quote above it says, "In order for his [sorenson's] model to fit the geography of Mesoamerica, one must assume that the Nephites had a system of directions with cardinal directions skewed '45 degrees or more' off of the usually observed cardinals." It seems to suggest that Sorenson agrees that the directional system must be skewed/rotated. I'm not sure he feels that way. Are you familiar with his The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book (specifically, Appendix C, "The Problem of Directions")? Additionally, he mentions the "quartering of the land" in his paper entitled "The Settlements of Book of Mormon Peoples."

Level 5: Quarters of the land

Another Nephite geographical concept was expressed in terms of a "Quarter of the land." A fourfold quartering of the land of Zarahemla in the days of the Amalickiahite wars was based on east-west and north-south axes (although those axes did not necessarily coincide with the axes we used today). Mosiah 27:6 speaks of "all quarters of the land." Three of the quarters were subsequently identified. The quarter that was centered on Manti (see Alma 43:26; 58:30) was referred to as "on the south by the west sea" (Alma 53:22). of "all quarters of the land." Three of the quarters were subsequently identified. The quarter that was centered on Manti (see Alma 43:26; 58:30) was referred to as "on the south by the west sea" (Alma 53:22). Another quarter was based on the city of Bountiful (Alma 52:10; 61:15). "Quarter" was also applied to the area called "the borders by the east sea," which was adjacent to Lamanite lands on the east and south. Apparently this segment was anchored by either the city of Moroni or the city of Nephihah, and it was conceived to be in direct contrast with the Manti quarter (see Alma 59:6).

The quarters were thought of as peripheral units surrounding a "heart" land consisting of the zone around the city of Zarahemla (Alma 60:19; Helaman 1:18). There in "the center" was where the political headquarters resided, as well as "the most capital parts" of the Nephite possessions in the land southward (Helaman 1:18, 24-27; compare Alma 60:19, 22). These statements account for three peripheral quarters in addition to the "heart." That leaves only the north and west quadrant unnamed. Probably that area centered on Ammonihah.

The record is too succinct to discern specific quarters in Lamanite territory, although in principle it seems likely there were such, inasmuch as the concept was Hebraic and thus probably was part of the thinking of Laman and Lemuel. A hint comes from the discussion in Alma 23:8-15 about the cities and lands where Lamanites were converted by the Nephite missionaries. It mentions Amulonite anti-missionary influence being concentrated in "that part of the land wheresoever they dwelt" (verse 14), while their opponents were concentrated in another part. Also, indication of at least twofold division of the Jaredite realm may suggest that the concept of quarters existed among that earlier people (see Ether 8:2-3; 10:32; 11:15).

—John L. Sorenson

Edited August 7, 2012 by cursor

[poulsenll]

Addendum

The map as drawn shows the current path of the Grijalva River. It is known that anciently it flowed north from Cardenas but was diverted east because river pirates were using it to invade Cardenas.

Larry P

[Brant Gardner]

Are you familiar with his The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book (specifically, Appendix C, "The Problem of Directions")?

Yes. If he has written it about Mesoamerica, I believe that I have read it more than once. In the case of directions, he was clearly correct that the answer lay in the different way cultures express directions. He had the right answer, but did not couch it in defensible terms--which is the reason that the term Nephite North has become a ready referential term.

His geography still works better than any other, though I believe that there are a few specifics about which I would strongly disagree. They don't matter for the majority of the correlation, however. What we need is a way to comprehend how the terminology relates to the textual instructions. As I said, he knew where the answer was, but didn't provide it in a way that it answered enough questions. I hope that is improved.

[Brant Gardner]

The map as drawn shows the current path of the Grijalva River. It is known that anciently it flowed north from Cardenas but was diverted east because river pirates were using it to invade Cardenas.

Larry P

Larry:

I noted our conversations in the footnotes, and at one point remembered that I should have made them clear verbally at the beginning. Then I forgot. For those who are reading this, but don't read footnotes, Larry worked out a lot of this, and much of the specifics we hashed over in a phone conversation.

[ANACO]

The Grijalva river that flows through the land of Zarahemla as shown on that map flows northwest, not cardinal nlorth. The Usamacinta also shown on the map flows more near but not exactly toward cardinal north.

A careful view of the Grijalva in Google Earth shows that it has segments that flow north and other segments that flow northwest. No real river flows exclusively in one direction.

Larry P

The Mississippi River doesn't flow exclusively in one direction? Sure it doesn't, if you take into account horseshoe bends, which the Grijalva also has.

(Even the Colorado River carved horseshoe canyons.)

The Rio Grijalva, after leaving the artificial Nezahualcoyotl Lake, flows north and northeast emptying into the Gulf of Campeche.

See http://www.eosnap.com/tag/nezahualcoyotl-lake/ & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grijalva_River

North and Northeast is the opposite of your "Mesoamerica North."

The River Sidon should be flowing perpendicular to the narrow neck of land, not parallel to it.

The narrow neck of land divides the land northward from the land southward while the River Sidon is alleged to flow north.

Mormon's Map was wrong the day it was published.

Kind regards.