By using the Isthmus of
Tehuantepec as the narrow neck of land in the Mesoamerican setting, the
theorists of that model are faced with the problem of having the east and
west seas directly north and south of the narrow neck rather than east
and
west as stated in the scriptures. Thus, to correct the problem, they have
opted to skew the almost universally used cardinal directions of our
modern compass by 45 degrees, which would then allow the Gulf waters,
(which are really to the north of the isthmus), to be east, and the
Pacific Ocean, (which is actually to the south of the isthmus), to be on
the west.
The noted Mesoamerican theorist, John Sorenson, went on to say:
The directional trend of the two lands {land northward and land southward} and the neck was generally north-south. The east sea (six references) and the west sea (twelve references) were primary bodies of water that bounded this promised land. But notice that the key term of reference is not "land north" (only five references) but "land northward" (thirty-one references). There is, of course, a distinction; "land northward" implies a direction somewhat off from literal north. This implies that the lands are not simply oriented to the cardinal directions is confirmed by reference to the "sea north" and "sea south" (Helaman 3:8). These terms are used only once, in reference to the colonizing of the land northward by the Nephites, but not in connection with the land southward. The only way to have seas north and south on a literal descriptive basis would be for two major bodies of land to be oriented at an angle somewhat off true north-south. That would allow part of the ocean to lie toward the south of one and another part of the ocean lie toward the north of the other. (Sorenson, Mormon’s Map, p. 20.)
In an effort to make things fit, John Sorenson suggests that Lehi’s colony simply changed their directional system once they landed in the New World. He said:
Suppose, for a moment, that you were with Lehi’s party as it arrived on the Pacific coast of Central America. By western civilizations ‘general present-day terminology, the shore would be oriented approximately northwest-southeast. When you said yamah, intending 'westward’, the term would mean literally ‘seaward.’ although the water would literally be behind your back to today’s southwest. Further, the first step you took inland, away from the sea would be ‘eastward’ (‘to the fore,’ literally) in Hebrew; but we today would say the motion had been northeast. In absence if a conscious group decision to shift the sense of their Hebrew direction term by 45 degrees or more (something almost impossibly linguistically), the little group of colonists would have fallen into a new directional language pattern, skewed from the Cardinal points, as their Semitic-language model encountered the new setting. 1
Mesoamerican theorists defend this way of calculating directions by claiming that only those with a background in literature, astronomy, anthropology or history are able to understand such matters. This, of course, would suggest the lay-member place their trust in the hands of those better qualified to understand the scriptures. Sadly, their patience wears thin at times when their arguments are questioned.
. . . we should at least be warned against the trap of ethnocentric naiveté or inadequate scholarship manifest when someone insists that ‘north must mean where the north star lies ‘or that 'rotating the Nephite directions’ is something that interpreters now do in violation of the text. The Book of Mormon is the authority on the Book of Mormon. Our problem is to discover what it is saying to us. 2
To add to the confusion, because Mesoamerican theorists are unable to reconcile the reference to four seas in their setting which is sandwiched between only two, the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific, John Clark, a Mesoamerican theorist, is convinced that: "The passage in Helaman 3: 8 may have been meant in a metaphorical rather than a literal way." He comments:
I am convinced that the reference to a north sea and a south sea is devoid of any concrete geographical content. All specific reference or allusions to Book of Mormon seas are only to the east and west seas. Any geography that tries to accommodate a north and south sea, . . is doomed to fail. But we cannot dismiss the reference to these seas out of hand. If they are metaphorical, what was the metaphor? 3
Because the Lord delights in plainness, and because the Book of Mormon was translated by divine means, this author feels we can trust that the scriptures, including any directional designation, were translated into language even the simplest of us could understand. Thus, North would mean north and south would mean south, etc. The New York setting is laid out in precisely the manner described in the Book of Mormon and every reference to northward or southward or east or west can be clearly understood.
For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto their understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding. (2 Nephi 31:3.)
Actually, evidence indicates that the four Cardinal Points were revered by
prehistoric people, not just in North America but throughout the hemisphere.
This in itself would tend to discount any notion that it was necessary for
Lehi’s colony to change the cardinal points once they touched down in the
New World. Moreover, why should they for they used the same Cardinal Points
we use today in their sojourn though the wilderness after leaving Jerusalem
and setting sail for the New World.
Archaeological
investigations show that cities throughout both Mexico and Yucatan, as well
the mound building regions of the eastern United States, including both the
Hopewell (500 B.C. - 400 A.D.) and the later Mississippi Cultures (700 A.D.
1500 A.D.), were laid out with careful regard to the cardinal points.
Cecil
Brown’s study of the cardinal directional terms in a number of North
American Indian languages reveals:
...east {the location of the rising sun} was the singularly most important directional designation in 15 Woodland languages - with west as the second. Interestingly, the next in importance were the terms ‘up’ and ‘down’ with north or south considered last." 4
This author does not stand alone
in the belief that the translation of the plates entrusted to Joseph Smith
by the Angel Moroni were interpreted, not only correctly, but into language
that even the least of us can readily understand—including all
geographical references and name titles for animals, plants and any and all
topographical features of the lands.
When immediately afterwards we heard a voice from out {of} the bright light above us saying:
These plates have been translated by the power of God, the translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear. 5
With such a strong testimony of the correctness of the book, it would seem out of order to try and change the meaning put forth in that sacred work simply to make a proposed geographical setting fit more comfortably with the scriptures. Such a practice can only lead to confusion. The Liahona directed the Nephites to the promised land, but once arriving, they used the same cardinal points as the rest of the house of Israel, with east being in the direction of the rising sun.
And now, my son, I have somewhat to say concerning the thing which our fathers call a ball, or director--or our fathers called it Liahona, which is, being interpreted, a compass; and the Lord prepared it. (Alma 37: 38.)
End Notes:
1- John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of
Mormon, p. 39.
2- John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of
Mormon, p. 40.
3- John Clark, Review of Books, Hauke, Deciphering the
Geography, p. 65. F.A.R.M.S.
4- Maureen Korp, The Sacred Geography of the American Mound Builders,
p. 45.
5- Angel Moroni, quoted in: Words of Joseph Smith, p. 237.
Copyright © 1998 by Phyllis Carol Olive