Directions In The Book Of Mormon

[ANACO]

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).

This didn't apply to the Nephite Nation.

It was called a Nation. (Mormon 8:27)

Zarahemla and its land was considered it's capital city. (Helaman 1:27)

Alma, the first chief judge, was the chief judge over all the land (Alma 30:29). That seat was in Zarahemla.

Even though each city had it's own chief judge (Alma 14:23)

There was a centralized govt among the Nephites. This is clearly described in 3 Nephi 7:2 before the destruction at the Savior's death.

That centralized govt was restored and later destroyed again. (Mormon 8:27)

Regards.

[ANACO]

Another thing you need to consider is, Dr. Sorenson considered the Book of Mormon lands to be in the Guatemala Highlands - the state of Chiapas.

Yet, the Grijalva flows through the deep Sumidero Canyon. To claim that Nephite/Lamanite battles occurred on these cliffs along the "River Sidon" and the bodies of Lamanites were thrown into the river, to obtain passage to the other side of a deep canyon, appears silly. That canyon has now been damned, thus the calm lake you see in the photo - the river before was a raging rapid, not unlike the Grand Canyon of Arizona to which it's compared at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumidero_Canyon My point is there's more to the Grijalva than its direction. Kind regards.

[Brant Gardner]

This didn't apply to the Nephite Nation.

It was called a Nation. (Mormon 8:27)

Zarahemla and its land was considered it's capital city. (Helaman 1:27)

Alma, the first chief judge, was the chief judge over all the land (Alma 30:29). That seat was in Zarahemla.

Even though each city had it's own chief judge (Alma 14:23)

There was a centralized govt among the Nephites. This is clearly described in 3 Nephi 7:2 before the destruction at the Savior's death.

That centralized govt was restored and later destroyed again. (Mormon 8:27)

Regards.

You might do well to study non-western political systems - or many from antiquity. When you look at what Alma the chief judge has to do to quell potential rebellion in Amonihah and Antionum, it is pretty clear that he doesn't have sufficient authority to declare anything for them. They might have had nominal allegiance to Zarahemla, but little held it together. The Aztec hegemony of the triple alliance was a similar concept, but with a lot more power behind it. Nevertheless, it also disintegrated rapidly.

The Book of Mormon shows in the actions a political system that operated very much as did political systems in Mesoamerica. Rather than rely on vocabulary, it is wise to look at what actually happens in the text before declaring types of political systems.

[Brant Gardner]

The Mississippi River doesn't flow exclusively in one direction?

Are you suggesting the Mississippi as the Sidon? If so, please tell us where armies could ford it, which happens twice. There is such a spot on the Grijalva, near a hill that works for the second battle below.

34 And thus he cleared the ground, or rather the bank, which was on the west of the river Sidon, throwing the bodies of the Lamanites who had been slain into the waters of Sidon, that thereby his people might have room to cross and contend with the Lamanites and the Amlicites on the west side of the river Sidon.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 2:34)

31 Therefore, he divided his army and brought a part over into the valley, and concealed them on the east, and on the south of the hill Riplah;

32 And the remainder he concealed in the west valley, on the west of the river Sidon, and so down into the borders of the land Manti.

33 And thus having placed his army according to his desire, he was prepared to meet them.

34 And it came to pass that the Lamanites came up on the north of the hill, where a part of the army of Moroni was concealed.

35 And as the Lamanites had passed the hill Riplah, and came into the valley, and began to cross the river Sidon, the army which was concealed on the south of the hill, which was led by a man whose name was Lehi, and he led his army forth and encircled the Lamanites about on the east in their rear.

36 And it came to pass that the Lamanites, when they saw the Nephites coming upon them in their rear, turned them about and began to contend with the army of Lehi.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 43:31–36)

[cursor]

... the Grijalva flows through the deep Sumidero Canyon. To claim that Nephite/Lamanite battles occurred on these cliffs along the "River Sidon" and the bodies of Lamanites were thrown into the river, to obtain passage to the other side of a deep canyon, appears silly. That canyon has now been damned, thus the calm lake you see in the photo - the river before was a raging rapid, not unlike the Grand Canyon of Arizona to which it's compared at http://en.wikipedia....Sumidero_Canyon My point is there's more to the Grijalva than its direction.

Clearly, the battle that you reference could not have occurred at this point of the river. Specifically, that would be the occasion when the Amalicites hooked up with Lamanite armies moving northward [from the land of Nephi] towards the city of Zarahemla (Alma 2).

The Sumidero Canyon could not have been the place of this battle.

• It is on the wrong side of the city of my father's assignment for Zarahemla. It needs to be upstream, on the line [southward] between Zarahemla and Nephi.
  
• There needs to be a shoreline. In verse 27 we find them crossing the river. In verse 34 there is reference to the "bank, which was on the west of the river Sidon."
  
• There must be place for flocks and herds, as well as "fields of grain," which were "trodden down by the hosts of men." (Alma 3:2)
  

About 40 miles southward of the city of Zarahemla (Santa Rosa, now underwater), towards the city of Nephi (Kaminaljuyu), there is a prime location that satisfies all requirements. Generally, Google Earth: 15.845759°,-92.019644°. Note the extensive, existing farm land. Area photographs accessible from with Google Earth reveal a surrounding landscape that is much less dramatic than the Sumidero Canyon.

• Photo 1
  
• Photo 2
  
• Photo 3
  

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

It's apparent to me that you don't know the text. You have a handful of jigsaw puzzle pieces in the palm of your hand, but have not yet bothered examining the vast majority of the pieces still in the box.

Edited August 7, 2012 by cursor

[livy111us]

That is odd that Anaco is making outlandish claims without having the knowledge of the topic which he is commenting on. It is SO out of character for him!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggXmKPMaHMo

[cursor]

Another thing you need to consider is, Dr. Sorenson considered the Book of Mormon lands to be in the Guatemala Highlands - the state of Chiapas.

Please note that Dr. Sorenson says that the land of Nephi was in the Guatemala Highlands. Zarahemla, however, was indeed in the state of Chiapas ... which is in southern Mexico (not Guatemala).

To claim that Nephite/Lamanite battles occurred on these cliffs [Sumidero Canyon] along the "River Sidon" and the bodies of Lamanites were thrown into the river, to obtain passage to the other side of a deep canyon, appears silly.

Note that the Sumidero Canyon is nearly 90 miles downstream from my father's assignment for the city of Zarahemla. The Lamanite attack in Alma 2 came from highland Guatemala ["down," in elevation] towards the state of Chiapas (Mexico). I've just created an graphic illustration using a Google Earth aerial perspective showing the Sorensons' (that includes me) assignment for the event. The projected location for the Nephite scouts (who discovered the Amlicites hooking up with the advancing Lamanites) is about 13 miles away, and at an elevation about 1,600 higher than the river Sidon. You can view the graphic here.

[robuchan]

Just thinking out loud here, but are there any ancient documents or at least pre-colonial documents that refer to directions between two cities in MesoAmerica? Can we check this theory against anything? Do we documentation of them saying City X is north of City Y when it really is not?

[Brant Gardner]

Just thinking out loud here, but are there any ancient documents or at least pre-colonial documents that refer to directions between two cities in MesoAmerica? Can we check this theory against anything? Do we documentation of them saying City X is north of City Y when it really is not?

Off hand I don't know of any, but since I wasn't looking for it the last time I was going through many of the documents, my disavowal has little meaning. I know I went through the Popol Vuh and (as I remember) it only mentioned the east. When mentioning other peoples it simply assumed that everyone knew where they were didn't give descriptions.

[cursor]

Bill Hamblin is quoted as having written:

How would Nephi and his descendants, utilizing the 'learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians' (1 Ne. 1.2), have written the words north, south, east and west? The Hebrews, like most Semitic peoples, oriented themselves by facing east, toward the rising sun . . . . Thus east in Hebrew was simply 'front' (qedem) with south asMormht' (yamin), north as 'left' (semol), and west as 'behind' (achor) or 'sea' (yam).

But Nephi and his descendants actually wrote in the 'language of the Egyptians' (1 Ne. 1.2, Mos. 1.4, Morin. 9.32). How did the Egyptians name the four cardinal directions . . . ? [see earlier data.]

If you adjust the Hebrew way of thinking to match the Egyptian. . . , you find in fact that Hebrew west (behind) has basically the same semantic meaning as Egyptian north (back of the head); Hebrew east (front) equals Egyptian south (face); Hebrew north (left) matches Egyptian east (left); with Hebrew south (right) being Egyptian west (right).

Now let us suppose that Nephi, or any of his descendants, sat down at the gold plates and began to write in 'the language of the Egyptians.' He wants to write the word 'land westward' and naturally thinks to himself in Hebrew 'back.' But as he writes the Hebrew word 'land backward' in Egyptian characters, he realizes that in the Egyptian language he is actually writing the word for 'land northward.' So what does Nephi do? Write the Egyptian word, with Hebrew meaning in mind, or the Egyptian word, with the Egyptian meaning in mind?

If Nephi used the Egyptian terms with Hebrew meanings in mind, and if Joseph Smith translated these terms literally, you end up with a remarkable coincidence. The conceptual Hebrew (and modern) 'land westward' (Heb. behind) would be written in Egypto-Nephite characters as 'land northward," (Eg. behind) while the conceptual Hebrew (and modern) 'land eastward' (Heb. front) would have been written in EgyptoNephite as 'land southward' (Eg. front) . . . . In other words, you find the conceptual geography of the Hebrew universe must be 'distorted' in relation to the Egyptian vocabulary in precisely the same way that Nephite geography is 'distorted' in relation to Mesoamerica.

________

The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book,

Appendix C (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Study Aid SOR-90c). (Revised edition, 1992). (Provo, UT).

Edited August 7, 2012 by cursor

[cursor]

Here is a first draft of a map that I've authored for inclusion in my father's Mormon's Codex (chapter 23) dealing with the Alma₁ vs. Amlicite+Lamanite incident at the river Sidon: [Map 23.2]

[Brant Gardner]

Bill Hamblin is quoted as having written:

How would Nephi and his descendants, utilizing the 'learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians' (1 Ne. 1.2), have written the words north, south, east and west? The Hebrews, like most Semitic peoples, oriented themselves by facing east, toward the rising sun . . . . Thus east in Hebrew was simply 'front' (qedem) with south asMormht' (yamin), north as 'left' (semol), and west as 'behind' (achor) or 'sea' (yam).

But Nephi and his descendants actually wrote in the 'language of the Egyptians' (1 Ne. 1.2, Mos. 1.4, Morin. 9.32). How did the Egyptians name the four cardinal directions . . . ? [see earlier data.]

If you adjust the Hebrew way of thinking to match the Egyptian. . . , you find in fact that Hebrew west (behind) has basically the same semantic meaning as Egyptian north (back of the head); Hebrew east (front) equals Egyptian south (face); Hebrew north (left) matches Egyptian east (left); with Hebrew south (right) being Egyptian west (right).

Now let us suppose that Nephi, or any of his descendants, sat down at the gold plates and began to write in 'the language of the Egyptians.' He wants to write the word 'land westward' and naturally thinks to himself in Hebrew 'back.' But as he writes the Hebrew word 'land backward' in Egyptian characters, he realizes that in the Egyptian language he is actually writing the word for 'land northward.' So what does Nephi do? Write the Egyptian word, with Hebrew meaning in mind, or the Egyptian word, with the Egyptian meaning in mind?

If Nephi used the Egyptian terms with Hebrew meanings in mind, and if Joseph Smith translated these terms literally, you end up with a remarkable coincidence. The conceptual Hebrew (and modern) 'land westward' (Heb. behind) would be written in Egypto-Nephite characters as 'land northward," (Eg. behind) while the conceptual Hebrew (and modern) 'land eastward' (Heb. front) would have been written in EgyptoNephite as 'land southward' (Eg. front) . . . . In other words, you find the conceptual geography of the Hebrew universe must be 'distorted' in relation to the Egyptian vocabulary in precisely the same way that Nephite geography is 'distorted' in relation to Mesoamerica.

________

The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book,

Appendix C (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Study Aid SOR-90c). (Revised edition, 1992). (Provo, UT).

All of this makes presumptions about the nature of translation. Of course, I also use an assumption about the nature of translation (and have published my analysis). I differ from Dr. Sorenson.

The problem with assuming translations based on original meaning is that there is an assumption that there is a continuous understanding of the origin of a word throughout its history when it is used without reference to the original. I don't think that can be held as occurring in any language. Regardless of original meaning, the association of direction overrides origin. In translation, it is the resulting concept and not a reworking of the original meaning that occurs. The premise is interesting, but not linguistically defensible.

That said, he was still right--and for the right ideas--but for the wrong specific explanations. Not bad, though.

[cursor]

I emailed this entire former post to my father. He replied,

“In the language of the Egyptians.” He [brant Gardner] assumes that this means that the writers knew and used actual Egyptian words with actual Egyptian meanings. This ignores the substantial (to me, overwhelming) evidence that they only wrote words of the Hebrew tongue in “the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian”, but “if we could have written in Hebrew (characters)—and thus in their language of first choice for writing records--... ye would have had no imperfection in our record”. The extensive degree to which Hebrew (not Egyptian) poetry forms are found throughout the text (as shown by Don Parry) confirms this reading of Moroni’s meaning.

How easy it is to stumble across our assumptions which we have converted into “facts.”

Hey, if I haven't said it before ... my Dad rocks.

[Brant Gardner]

I really don't make the assumption of actual Egyptian or Egyptian meaning for much of the text, though the only evidence in the text is that it was Egyptian. The idea that it was Hebrew in Egyptian characters is an extrapolation from the text. It is possible, but certainly not explicit.

Still, I expect that quotidian language would have been neither. A small group merging into a larger population would eventually end up with the dominant regional language, even while preserving Hebrew and some form of Egyptian as scholarly languages (late in the text we know they could have written in Hebrew and did write in "reformed Egyptian"--whatever that was).

Regardless, orientation occurs against a reference point and not because of any linguistic etymology. Those meanings are relevant only when the language continues to exist in the region where the original references continue to make sense. Nevertheless, they make sense as directions, not translations of meanings.

As for the poetry forms, what we have are forms of parallel lines, forms which also occur in Mesoamerican documents (there is chiasmus in the Popol Vuh). While one might argue for cultural borrowings, patterning is hardly culturally unique, and dual parallels sufficiently human as to be easily explained by independent invention. So, yes we have poetry, but that poetry does not in and of itself point to any language as it is the structure of the ideas that creates the poetry regardless of the language (which is why they exist through translation).

[robuchan]

Brant, question for you on this:

My understanding of this from you is that north and south were not really part of the vocabulary of Mesoamericans. East and West were important, but north and south, not so much, and they didn't use directions to describe things commonly, the way we do.

So question of you is...Why does the BOM text include the directions north and south and the words northward and southward so much? Would you consider this anachronistic?

[Brant Gardner]

My understanding of this from you is that north and south were not really part of the vocabulary of Mesoamericans. East and West were important, but north and south, not so much, and they didn't use directions to describe things commonly, the way we do.

I am finding that this is a very difficult concept to communicate. I don't think I have yet found a way to make it clear. The people of Mesoamerica certainly knew how to orient themselves in the world, and from their language, we can tell that the primary directional reference was the sun. The confusing vocabulary for north and south isn't that they didn't have words for them, but that there was no standard. Most were some version of "the side of the sun's path." However, there were local variations such as the upslope/downslope terms.

So, the orient themselves just as we do, but have different words behind those "directions." Because their directions stemmed from the sun's path, which moves, rather than magnetic north, there was a wider range of land that would have been considered "north" (or any other direction) from where they were--depending upon where the sun happened to be.

So question of you is...Why does the BOM text include the directions north and south and the words northward and southward so much? Would you consider this anachronistic?

In a sense, all English terms are anachronistic, but of course that isn't really the point. Your question is whether or not having a text that has north and northward would be problematic.

That depends on how we understand what northward and southward mean. I know that Sorenson uses the words as though they were the equivalent of northwest or northeast (though I suspect usually northwest). I don't see them that way at all. The suffix -ward should indicate movement (to-ward). Therefore, we have words of orientation and words for travel direction. In that case I don't see any conflict at all, and cite a place where we have in the text both orientation terms and the travel-direction terms.

It is very hard for us to shift out of our understanding of directions (and try as I might, I still fall back into it often). So, if this is still unclear, ask again and I'll try again.