bdouglas Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 In 1 Nephi 16: 10:"And it came to pass that as my father arose in the morning, and went forth to the tent door, to his great astonishment he beheld upon the ground a round ball of curious workmanship; and it was of fine brass. And within the ball were two spindles; and the one pointed the way whither we should go into the wilderness." The "one pointed the way whither we should go into the wilderness." What did the other spindle do? Or was there really just one spindle but two ends to the same spindle? It reads to me like there were two separate spindles. Vs. 28:"And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the pointers which were in the ball, that they did work according to the faith and diligence and heed which we did give unto them." "Pointers": plural. Vs. 29:"And there was also written upon them a new writing, which was plain to be read, which did give us understanding concerning the ways of the Lord; and it was written and changed from time to time, according to the faith and diligence which we gave unto it." I googled this question (actually I use Bing; don't like monopolies) and someone said the "writing" appeared on second spindle, i.e., that this is what second spindle was for. Thoughts?
strappinglad Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) I suspect one was movable by Lehi. He could line it up with the 'God moved ' spindle and then start walking. Otherwise how would you know if you had deviated course. Vast deserts and oceans have few landmarks to follow and if the stars are obscured, good luck. Just spit-balling. Ask rodheadlee. Edited May 31, 2015 by strappinglad
Kevin Christensen Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 See Journal Book of Mormon Studies 3/2, "The Design of the Liahona and the Purpose of the Second Spindle" by Robert L. Bunker. http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1386&index=1 And there was Nibley's discussion here: http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1113&index=11 FWIW Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA 2
bdouglas Posted May 31, 2015 Author Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) See Journal Book of Mormon Studies 3/2, "The Design of the Liahona and the Purpose of the Second Spindle" by Robert L. Bunker.http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1386&index=1And there was Nibley's discussion here:http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1113&index=11FWIWKevin ChristensenBethel Park, PA Reading these links now. Fascinating stuff. Bunker says: "As such, [the Liahona] stands as an especially unique object in all of human history——it is the only mechanical device, of which we have knowledge, ever constructed 'by the hand of the Lord' for use by mortal man." Do you happen to know bio of Robert Bunker? Is he by any chance an engineer? Edited May 31, 2015 by bdouglas
bdouglas Posted May 31, 2015 Author Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) People who say Joseph Smith or somebody else made up the Book Of Mormon always amaze me. Have they really ever even read it? I mean closely read it. This little detail about second spindle is an example of what I mean, and there are hundreds of little details like this all through the book. Someone making up the story would not say there were two spindles unless he were prepared to tell us what second spindle was for. But we are never told anywhere what the second spindle was for. "Truth is stranger than fiction but not so orderly." There are too many "disorderly" bits in the Book Of Mormon——i.e., loose ends, things like the second spindle——for the book to be fiction. In other words the book reads like a real history, albeit a sacred history. Real history is littered with loose ends, things that don't at first compute. The only explanation for the book that makes any sense is the one Joseph Smith gave. (This is on my mind because I've been talking to someone who recently left the church and doesn't believe Book Of Mormon anymore, says Joseph Smith made it up.) Edited May 31, 2015 by bdouglas
PeterPear Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 You don't need Bunker or Nibley to tell you.The Book of Mormon tells you:"And it came to pass that we did again take our journey in the wilderness; and we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth. And we did travel and wade through much affliction in the wilderness; and our women did bear children in the wilderness."This is the comtinuation of their travel after receiving the liahona. The family group changed course because of receiving the liahona.So how did Nephi know they were going "nearly eastward"? From the Liahona, of course. Who knows, the lost manuscripts may have had more detail about it. Alma called it a compass.So the other needle pointed North - allowing Nephi to know they were going "nearly eastward."(Sort of ruins that mesoamerica theory about Nephites' and Lamanites' skewed directions in an east-west isthmus.)
rodheadlee Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) You don't need Bunker or Nibley to tell you.The Book of Mormon tells you:"And it came to pass that we did again take our journey in the wilderness; and we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth. And we did travel and wade through much affliction in the wilderness; and our women did bear children in the wilderness."This is the comtinuation of their travel after receiving the liahona. The family group changed course because of receiving the liahona.So how did Nephi know they were going "nearly eastward"? From the Liahona, of course. Who knows, the lost manuscripts may have had more detail about it. Alma called it a compass.So the other needle pointed North - allowing Nephi to know they were going "nearly eastward."(Sort of ruins that mesoamerica theory about Nephites' and Lamanites' skewed directions in an east-west isthmus.)Too bad you ruined your post with that last little dig about directions. Why don'y you hop on US hwy 1 out of Key West and head true north? Edited May 31, 2015 by rodheadlee 1
PeterPear Posted June 1, 2015 Posted June 1, 2015 Thanks old-timer, for your cheerfulness to a new member. I've heard this site is an exclusive club.
strappinglad Posted June 1, 2015 Posted June 1, 2015 Having lived in the wide open prairie most of my life, I can tell you which way is east most days by the sun. The Liahona pointed which way to go. Basic knowledge told the Lehites which way that was.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 1, 2015 Posted June 1, 2015 (edited) You don't need Bunker or Nibley to tell you.The Book of Mormon tells you:"And it came to pass that we did again take our journey in the wilderness; and we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth. And we did travel and wade through much affliction in the wilderness; and our women did bear children in the wilderness."This is the comtinuation of their travel after receiving the liahona. The family group changed course because of receiving the liahona.So how did Nephi know they were going "nearly eastward"? From the Liahona, of course. Who knows, the lost manuscripts may have had more detail about it. Alma called it a compass.So the other needle pointed North - allowing Nephi to know they were going "nearly eastward."You are mostly right: Two spindles, (1) one to show magnetic north, and (2) one to set the azimuth. Anyone doing boy scout land navigation knows that. What seems odd, though, is that a magnetic compass would exist so early. Many anti-Mormons have even attacked on that point. However, Thales of Miletus (contemporary of Lehi) was already aware of the magnetic properties of magnetite (from Magnesia), and the first known magnetic compass was actually used by the Olmec (discovered and tested by Mike Coe). (Sort of ruins that mesoamerica theory about Nephites' and Lamanites' skewed directions in an east-west isthmus.)Actually anyone familiar with directional teminology and its application in Mesoamerica would not say that. A good many assumptions are based on modern people looking at topographical maps rather than asking about actual usage. Anthropological reality depends upon what the Conquistadores said and upon actual native usage. Edited June 1, 2015 by Robert F. Smith 1
rodheadlee Posted June 1, 2015 Posted June 1, 2015 Thanks old-timer, for your cheerfulness to a new member. I've heard this site is an exclusive club.Your welcome, it just goes to show you can't believe everything you read on a highway sign. But maybe it shows that to get to the Land Northward you have to go NW or NE as the case may be. Did you know that magnetic north has 0* variation at Key West but at Los Angeles it's approximately 14.5* E and it changes yearly. I'd have to get a chart out and do a lot of math to figure the exact variation for Chiapas, MX in 600BC. 4
Kevin Christensen Posted June 1, 2015 Posted June 1, 2015 You don't need Bunker or Nibley to tell you. The Book of Mormon tells you: "And it came to pass that we did again take our journey in the wilderness; and we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth. And we did travel and wade through much affliction in the wilderness; and our women did bear children in the wilderness." This is the comtinuation of their travel after receiving the liahona. The family group changed course because of receiving the liahona. So how did Nephi know they were going "nearly eastward"? From the Liahona, of course. Who knows, the lost manuscripts may have had more detail about it. Alma called it a compass. So the other needle pointed North - allowing Nephi to know they were going "nearly eastward." (Sort of ruins that mesoamerica theory about Nephites' and Lamanites' skewed directions in an east-west isthmus.)On the issue of skewed directions, it helps to be a bit more up to date on the best arguments. See Poulson: http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf And Gardner: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/from-the-east-to-the-west-the-problem-of-directions-in-the-book-of-mormon/ FWIW Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA 2
Garden Girl Posted June 1, 2015 Posted June 1, 2015 Thanks old-timer, for your cheerfulness to a new member. I've heard this site is an exclusive club. Welcome PeterPear....An exclusive club?? Perhaps you've not posted here long enough to realize it is anything but an "exclusive" club. Stay with us... you'll see a good many people express various views, particularly our critics... and, as an oldtimer myself, I've seen new member after new member welcomed sincerely... certainly the majority here are LDS, some with their own differing views, but we also have lots of non-LDS, former LDS, agnostics, atheists, etc etc., all entering into discussions that can become quite lively... Again, welcome... GG
CV75 Posted June 1, 2015 Posted June 1, 2015 Thoughts?I’ve taken it to mean that one of the uses was to point the physical way to go (1 Nephi 16:10), and the other use was to point the spiritual way to go (1 Nephi 16:27-29). Alma 37:40-45 also indicates the spindles/pointers worked in these two senses, adding that the Liahona is also a type. Both spindles had writing upon them according to the faith and diligence of the users, and perhaps the spindles had to come into alignment by the faith of the users to make this happen, making the tool a kind of spiritual barometer as well, assisting them to focus and bring their faith and diligence into alignment with the instructions given along the way in order to ensure that it continued to work. Some of the links in the other posts may mention this, but the use of two spindles could also have served as a “one means yes, two means yes-no” kind of decision-making aid, or by some other movement or positioning of the two spindles in relation to each other, to other workmanship on the ball, etc.
rodheadlee Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 The second spindle was a battery charge indicator.
Gervin Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 "And it came to pass that we did again take our journey in the wilderness; and we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth. And we did travel and wade through much affliction in the wilderness; and our women did bear children in the wilderness."From the point where LDS believe NHM becomes Nahom, eastwardly, to the sea is around 500 miles. If they traveled "nearly eastward from that time forth" ... and they were in the wilderness for 8 years, then this group traveled at a rate of about 5 miles a month. I wonder what kind of afflictions would reduce a group to travel, on average, less than 1000 feet a day?
Robert F. Smith Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 From the point where LDS believe NHM becomes Nahom, eastwardly, to the sea is around 500 miles. If they traveled "nearly eastward from that time forth" ... and they were in the wilderness for 8 years, then this group traveled at a rate of about 5 miles a month. I wonder what kind of afflictions would reduce a group to travel, on average, less than 1000 feet a day? You're straining gnats and swallowing camels, Gervin. You need a little reality therapy: The Lehites began their time in the wilderness in approx. 597 B.C. (first year of the reign of Zedekiah), their first encampment about three days journey south of Aqaba along the Red Sea coast. Like any nomadic or bedouin tribe, they did not travel each day, but remained in individual encampments for a time, then moved on. Eight years in the wilderness does not translate into daily increments of travel. That is just silly. No anthropologist would ever suggest that. Keeping off the main roads, they spent 8 years being guided from place to place by the Liahona, bearing children, grazing their camels, hunting for food along the way. At the end of eight years, they were in Bountiful, along the South Arabian coast, in ca. 589 B.C. En route, they may have stayed in as little as 8 - 12 specific locations for extended periods. 3
cinepro Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) There are too many "disorderly" bits in the Book Of Mormon——i.e., loose ends, things like the second spindle——for the book to be fiction. In other words the book reads like a real history, albeit a sacred history. Real history is littered with loose ends, things that don't at first compute. The only explanation for the book that makes any sense is the one Joseph Smith gave.Just a tip for your future in apologetics (and dealing with disbelieving friends): if you find the following comic funny, then you should probably spend some more time studying criticisms and defenses of the Book of Mormon.If you find the comic totally reasonable and don't see much humor in it, then you're right where you should be. Edited June 5, 2015 by cinepro
Recommended Posts