Up and Down in The Book of Mormon - the correct definition

[PeterPear]

http://lds.net/blog/faith/jew-reads-book-mormon/

"Jerusalem is in the mountains....."

"But if I were to leave Park City (6900 feet) and travel to Jerusalem, I would still be going up. Jerusalem is holy, so you always ascend to it. The Holy Land itself is also always up. So if someone asks you when you arrived in Israel and when you left, you always say, “I came up in this year, and descended in that one.” An immigrant to Israel is called an “ascend-er.” There’s no way Joseph Smith would have known this, so its presence in the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 3:4, for example) is one more proof that it is what it claims to be."

------------

The correct observation above is in contradiction to the interpretation of "up and down" being a topographical interpretation made by Dr. John L. Sorenson, and those who follow his geography theory. Incorrectly, Dr. Sorenson uses "up and down" in the Book of Mormon to refer to the Chiapas highlands of Guatemala as being the Land of Nephi, when actually going "up" to the Land of Nephi mentioned in the Book of Mormon is merely representing the respect the Nephites had for their original homeland. This is exmplified in Alma 54:13 - Captain Moroni threatening to retake the Land of Nephi.

Thus there is no need for the Land of Nephi to be "in the mountains" as "up" denotes a societal respect for the location, as explained by the author in the article I referenced above. This throws a cog in the so-called LTG or Mesoamerica geography theory for the Book of Mormon showing that it authors and promoters have been incorrect in their topography interpretation and their attempts to match it to Mesoamerica.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

This throws a cog in the so-called LTG or Mesoamerica geography theory for the Book of Mormon ...

Pet peeve: conflating the so-called limited geography theory (LGT) of the Book of Mormon with a theorised Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon. I'm a professional historian, and it is obvious to me each time I read the Book of Mormon that the text describes a very limited geography, but I am not sold on Mesoamerica as the text's setting. Two different things.

[PeterPear]

I also diagree with a Mesoamerica setting. And a limited geography. But the simple observation made by the Jewish convert in her article explains the "up" and "down" in the correct context.

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

I also diagree with a Mesoamerica setting. And a limited geography. But the simple observation made by the Jewish convert in her article explains the "up" and "down" in the correct context.

I don't disagree with a Mesoamerican setting. I'm just not convinced. But again, this is not the same thing -- at all -- as recognising the book's internal geographical scope.

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Thus there is no need for the Land of Nephi to be "in the mountains" as "up" denotes a societal respect for the location, as explained by the author in the article I referenced above. This throws a cog in the so-called LTG or Mesoamerica geography theory for the Book of Mormon showing that it authors and promoters have been incorrect in their topography interpretation and their attempts to match it to Mesoamerica.

If this interpretation of up shows "no need for the Land of Nephi to be in the mountains" then how does it throw a cog in the Mesoamerica geography theory? Seems either interpretation works fine with the Meso geography.
 

Edited March 7, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, PeterPear said:

http://lds.net/blog/faith/jew-reads-book-mormon/

"Jerusalem is in the mountains....."

"But if I were to leave Park City (6900 feet) and travel to Jerusalem, I would still be going up. Jerusalem is holy, so you always ascend to it. The Holy Land itself is also always up. So if someone asks you when you arrived in Israel and when you left, you always say, “I came up in this year, and descended in that one.” An immigrant to Israel is called an “ascend-er.” There’s no way Joseph Smith would have known this, so its presence in the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 3:4, for example) is one more proof that it is what it claims to be."

------------

The correct observation above is in contradiction to the interpretation of "up and down" being a topographical interpretation made by Dr. John L. Sorenson, and those who follow his geography theory. Incorrectly, Dr. Sorenson uses "up and down" in the Book of Mormon to refer to the Chiapas highlands of Guatemala as being the Land of Nephi, when actually going "up" to the Land of Nephi mentioned in the Book of Mormon is merely representing the respect the Nephites had for their original homeland. This is exmplified in Alma 54:13 - Captain Moroni threatening to retake the Land of Nephi.

Thus there is no need for the Land of Nephi to be "in the mountains" as "up" denotes a societal respect for the location, as explained by the author in the article I referenced above. This throws a cog in the so-called LTG or Mesoamerica geography theory for the Book of Mormon showing that it authors and promoters have been incorrect in their topography interpretation and their attempts to match it to Mesoamerica.

While it is true that the up and down references in the Bible can refer to the holiness of the site of the Jerusalem temple, it is also true that it is the highest point of the ancient City, and the topography does require that one go up to it.  This is true even if you leave the top of Everest to go to Jerusalem, because you will still have to go down before you go up to the Holy City.  And, since temples were usually placed at the highest point of each city, the Canaanites regularly used the same up-down references for their temples.  Similarly, Egypt is much lower in elevation than Jerusalem, so going down to Egypt and up to Jerusalem is a standard biblical descriptive mode -- topographical.

You also misunderstand Sorenson's suggested topography:  There are no "Chiapas highlands of Guatemala."  Chiapas State in Mexico is focused on a valley in which the Grijalva River runs north.  This is where Sorenson places the Nephites & Mulekites of Zarahemla.  Way upriver is highland Guatemala, a very different area, which Sorenson sees as the Land of First Inheritance (Lehi-Nephi).  The up and down references in the Book of Mormon are consistently topographical. 

[Brant Gardner]

5 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Dr. Sorenson uses "up and down" in the Book of Mormon to refer to the Chiapas highlands of Guatemala as being the Land of Nephi, when actually going "up" to the Land of Nephi mentioned in the Book of Mormon is merely representing the respect the Nephites had for their original homeland. This is exmplified in Alma 54:13 - Captain Moroni threatening to retake the Land of Nephi.

And we are to believe that the social designation reverencing the Land of Nephi continued to be one of sacredness even after it was a Lamanite homeland--in direct conflict with the new Nephite lands, and when the Nephite center of worship no longer looked to the Land of Nephi but to Zarahemla?

Where is there an indication that the Land of Nephi was held sacred? The first expedition in which Zeniff took part was military revenge for being removed, and when the more destructive part of the mission was defeated by force, Zeniff backed off of conquest because he saw much good. What that tells us is that there were many who had not seem much good. That, in turn, suggests that there was no such reverence for the location itself that would have led to a sacred "up."

Much of the sacred "up" that we see in interpretations of the Bible came after the literal "up"--and Robert Smith pointed out. It is an interesting idea, but one without any available textual support in the Book of Mormon.

[PeterPear]

23 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

While it is true that the up and down references in the Bible can refer to the holiness of the site of the Jerusalem temple, it is also true that it is the highest point of the ancient City, and the topography does require that one go up to it.  This is true even if you leave the top of Everest to go to Jerusalem, because you will still have to go down before you go up to the Holy City.  And, since temples were usually placed at the highest point of each city, the Canaanites regularly used the same up-down references for their temples.  Similarly, Egypt is much lower in elevation than Jerusalem, so going down to Egypt and up to Jerusalem is a standard biblical descriptive mode -- topographical.

You also misunderstand Sorenson's suggested topography:  There are no "Chiapas highlands of Guatemala."  Chiapas State in Mexico is focused on a valley in which the Grijalva River runs north.  This is where Sorenson places the Nephites & Mulekites of Zarahemla.  Way upriver is highland Guatemala, a very different area, which Sorenson sees as the Land of First Inheritance (Lehi-Nephi).  The up and down references in the Book of Mormon are consistently topographical. 

I apologize for misplacing the Chiapas highlands in Guatemala vs Mexico. But the sole reason for Sorenson placing the Land of Nephi in Chiapas is due to his interpreting "up and down" as topographical, quoted by Bro. Gardner:

"We have more information about the surface features of the land than a casual reading of the scriptures might imply. The recordkeepers consistently wrote about going “up,” “down,” or “over.” .......  This information allows us to draw a neat picture of relative elevations."

...."A dominant feature is the major river, the Sidon, which flowed down out of the mountains that separated the lands of Nephi and Zarahemla.." http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/review/20/2/S00007-5176a3c9e699d7Gardner.pdf

So clearly Sorenson is ignoring that "up" could mean something other than topography and using it to justify describing the River Sidon as the Grijalva in the mountains of Chiapas state.

If going up to the Land of Nephi is representative of its sacredness (it was named after Nephi afterall) and the Temple Nephi built and their hundreds of years of history of residing there until they fled to the Land of Zarahemla..Jacob's great sermon of fidelity and chastity was taught in the Temple...generations later Zeniff returned and rebuilt the city, its walls, the Temple, which King Noah later desecrated...generations later Captain Moroni threatened to attack the Lamanites and retake the Land of Nephi...

..the Land of Nephi was called the Nephite's Land of Inheritance. In a similar way Jerusalem was for the Jews who were told thaey would one day be restored to it and their Temple rebuilt.

..Then If you exclude topography for going "up" to the Land of Nephi, then you don't need to speculate about mountains, nor a river flowing down from the mountains, etc. making a North American location plausible.

[PeterPear]

21 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

And we are to believe that the social designation reverencing the Land of Nephi continued to be one of sacredness even after it was a Lamanite homeland--in direct conflict with the new Nephite lands, and when the Nephite center of worship no longer looked to the Land of Nephi but to Zarahemla?

Where is there an indication that the Land of Nephi was held sacred? The first expedition in which Zeniff took part was military revenge for being removed, and when the more destructive part of the mission was defeated by force, Zeniff backed off of conquest because he saw much good. What that tells us is that there were many who had not seem much good. That, in turn, suggests that there was no such reverence for the location itself that would have led to a sacred "up."

Much of the sacred "up" that we see in interpretations of the Bible came after the literal "up"--and Robert Smith pointed out. It is an interesting idea, but one without any available textual support in the Book of Mormon.

You have been able to read between the lines to come up with, for example, directions other than the cardinal, or the spies of Moroni/Laman had the same skin color as the Lamanites, etc... But you can't come up with any ideas as to why The Land of Nephi might have been revered?

It's name for one. Used hundreds of years later by Captain Moroni in his threat to retake the land of their inheritance stolen from them by the Lamanites.

How about the hundreds of years of Nephite history in the Land of Nephi? The founders or fathers of their nation being buried there? The scriptures used by them as taught by Nephi, Jacob, Enos?

Dont we consider the grove in New York to be sacred and when the Church purchased the property is was considered an historical event? And the Hill Cumorah? The rebuilding of the Nauvoo Temple? The Winter Quarters Temple? The recent site of the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood?

Why would Zeniff and his people risk their necks to live among the Lamanites? Because the Nephites revered the land of their fathers and wanted to reoccupy it.

This not a difficult concept to grasp.

Kind regards.

[Brant Gardner]

11 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

..the Land of Nephi was called the Nephite's Land of Inheritance. In a similar way Jerusalem was for the Jews who were told thaey would one day be restored

There is a land of inheritance before Nephi leaves it for the land of Nephi. Then, after leaving that, Zeniff specifically calls it the "land of our father's first inheritance" (Mosiah 9:1). That rather suggests that there was a second so that the land of Nephi could be the "first."

Then, in Alma 21:12, we have the land of Ishmael being called a land of inheritance--so the phrase is not unique to the land of Nephi at all. The Ammonites are given Jershon to be an inheritance (Alma 27:22). 

Jesus, speaking in Bountiful--which is on the northern borders of the land of Zarahemla, tells the gathered Nephites: "And the Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you this land, for your inheritance." (3 Nephi 20:14) They were already at a temple, so there was clearly no longing for a different one. If anything, Jesus' appearance at that temple would have made it the most sacred in the land and therefore everything should be going "up" to Bountiful after that--according to your hypothesis. The only up/down reference for Bountiful is in Helaman 4:5 where the Lamanites came down against the Nephites--and eventually come to Bountiful.

The text does not support your reading for "up" as always being a sacred reference. The text does not support your assumption that the land of their first inheritance was more sacred to them than current lands of inheritance.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, PeterPear said:

I apologize for misplacing the Chiapas highlands in Guatemala vs Mexico.

You need to examine a topographical map.  The highlands are the Guatemala highlands, from which one goes down to Chiapas, a long valley, leading to the sea.  The people inhabiting the Guatemala highlands are Maya.  The people inhabiting the Chiapas valley are Mixe-Zoque.

But the sole reason for Sorenson placing the Land of Nephi in Chiapas is due to his interpreting "up and down" as topographical, quoted by Bro. Gardner:

The Land of Nephi is in highland Guatemala, not in lowland Chiapas.  Thus, you don't even know what Sorenson is claiming, much less why.

"We have more information about the surface features of the land than a casual reading of the scriptures might imply. The recordkeepers consistently wrote about going “up,” “down,” or “over.” .......  This information allows us to draw a neat picture of relative elevations."

...."A dominant feature is the major river, the Sidon, which flowed down out of the mountains that separated the lands of Nephi [highland Guatemala] and Zarahemla [lowland Chiapas].." http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/review/20/2/S00007-5176a3c9e699d7Gardner.pdf

So clearly Sorenson is ignoring that "up" could mean something other than topography and using it to justify describing the River Sidon as the Grijalva in the mountains of Chiapas state.

If going up to the Land of Nephi is representative of its sacredness (it was named after Nephi afterall) and the Temple Nephi built and their hundreds of years of history of residing there until they fled to the Land of Zarahemla..Jacob's great sermon of fidelity and chastity was taught in the Temple...generations later Zeniff returned and rebuilt the city, its walls, the Temple, which King Noah later desecrated...generations later Captain Moroni threatened to attack the Lamanites and retake the Land of Nephi...

..the Land of Nephi was called the Nephite's Land of Inheritance. In a similar way Jerusalem was for the Jews who were told thaey would one day be restored to it and their Temple rebuilt.

..Then If you exclude topography for going "up" to the Land of Nephi, then you don't need to speculate about mountains, nor a river flowing down from the mountains, etc. making a North American location plausible.

The onus is on those claiming a North American locus, in which multiple factors must be applied:  a literate culture, with large cities, large populations, cement construction, archeological sequences and artifacts consonant with BofM civilizations, etc.  Only Mesoamerica has those characteristics, beginning with the Olmec.  The claim that Sorenson has a "sole reason" is just plain silly.

 

[Rajah Manchou]

4 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Why would Zeniff and his people risk their necks to live among the Lamanites? Because the Nephites revered the land of their fathers and wanted to reoccupy it.

I agree that the Nephites did have an interest in reclaiming their land(s) of inheritance. I'm just not convinced they were driven by spiritual motives. It seems to me there must have been some economic purpose to it, maybe to control resources, valuable land, or a trade route.

Remember it was an "an austere and a blood-thirsty man" who lead the first party to retake the Land of Nephi. He was a stiffnecked leader who caused a contention; and all of his party were slain, save fifty, in the wilderness. Then when Zeniff's party attempted their second foray they were "smitten with famine and sore afflictions".

Their motives for reclaiming the Land of Nephi weren't so pure it seems. At the very least God didn't seem to be lifting them up.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[PeterPear]

4 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I agree that the Nephites did have an interest in reclaiming their land(s) of inheritance. I'm just not convinced they were driven by spiritual motives. It seems to me there must have been some economic purpose to it, maybe to control resources, valuable land, or a trade route.

Remember it was an "an austere and a blood-thirsty man" who lead the first party to retake the Land of Nephi. He was a stiffnecked leader who caused a contention; and all of his party were slain, save fifty, in the wilderness. Then when Zeniff's party attempted their second foray they were "smitten with famine and sore afflictions".

Their motives for reclaiming the Land of Nephi weren't so pure it seems. At the very least God didn't seem to be lifting them up.

The Nephite nation was a large one, so there were people with different motives. Dont forget the Sons of Mosiah and Ammon, the great missionaries quoted even today as examples of missionary work. And dont forget Ammon in Mosiah who helped the people of Limhi return to Zarahemla. He too was interested in what happened - 3 generations later - to the people of Zeniff. (Ironically, he considered himself unworthy to baptize the people of Limhi while the later missionary Ammon did - which is beside the point.)

Then there were the Nephite dissenters who went to reclaim the Land of Nephi and to rule over it and stir up the Lamanites to attack the Nephites. So the Land of Nephi played a large part in the history of the Nephites...until after 4Nephi.

[PeterPear]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

The fact I may have gotten some minutiae wrong about Sorenson's detailed and exhaustive theory is beside the point. An exhaustive treatise of something never accepted by the First Presidency makes such treatise irrelevant. Ive already quoted Sorenson's up and down interpretation. The Book of Mormon is not a topography book. It's a book about spirituality amd I've interjected a spiritual aspect to it as seen through the eyes of a Jewish convert.

Members of this site know Sorenson's theory and how its proponemts use it to interpret the Book of Mormon. So the least you can do is learn to view the Book in a new light and possibly learn something mew.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, PeterPear said:

An exhaustive treatise of something never accepted by the First Presidency makes such treatise irrelevant.

It's never been rejected by the First Presidency either, so I don't see how this helps your argument. 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, PeterPear said:

The fact I may have gotten some minutiae wrong about Sorenson's detailed and exhaustive theory is beside the point. An exhaustive treatise of something never accepted by the First Presidency makes such treatise irrelevant. Ive already quoted Sorenson's up and down interpretation. The Book of Mormon is not a topography book. It's a book about spirituality amd I've interjected a spiritual aspect to it as seen through the eyes of a Jewish convert.

Members of this site know Sorenson's theory and how its proponemts use it to interpret the Book of Mormon. So the least you can do is learn to view the Book in a new light and possibly learn something mew.

I'm never unhappy to "learn something mew" (meow  ).   However, you have said nothing here that is new, but rather you have entirely misunderstood and misrepresented Sorenson's views.  I have listened to such misrepresentations and misunderstandings for over forty years now, and fully expect to hear more of them.  I myself used to misunderstand the issues, but finally learned how to read the Book of Mormon carefully, rather than in a slapdash and slipshod manner.

As to the opinions of the Brethren, including the First Presidency, it is noteworthy that only Professor John L. Sorenson has been permitted to publish his geographical correlation with the Book of Mormon in the Church magazines:

Sorenson, John L., “Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture,” part 1, Ensign, 14/9 (Sept 1984), online at https://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/09/digging-into-the-book-of-mormon-our-changing-understanding-of-ancient-america-and-its-scripture?lang=eng . .

Sorenson, John L., “Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture,” part 2, Ensign, 14/10 (Oct 1984), online at https://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/10/digging-into-the-book-of-mormon-our-changing-understanding-of-ancient-america-and-its-scripture-part-2?lang=eng .

 .

[ERayR]

On 3/7/2016 at 6:39 PM, PeterPear said:

I also diagree with a Mesoamerica setting. And a limited geography. But the simple observation made by the Jewish convert in her article explains the "up" and "down" in the correct context.

 

Another case of insisting something is what it may or may not be.