Yesterday my father-in-law gave me an original copy of a book published in 1927 by the Deseret News Press titled An Introduction to the Study of the Book of Mormon by J.M. Sjodahl. On page 92, Sjodahl writes:
"Just where the colony of Lehi landed in America the sacred record does not state."
Then, on the very next page, he writes:
"The following from the Times and Seasons is important regarding the question of landing:"
[he then quotes the Sept 15, 1842, article, including this section]
"When we read in the Book of Mormon... that Lehi went down by the Red Sea to the great southern ocean, and crossed over to this land, and landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien, and improved the country..."
Those italics are Sjodahl's. He doesn't seem to notice the inconsistency between the plain fact that the text does not say where Lehi landed, but the Times and Seasons article claims "we read in the Book of Mormon" exactly where they landed!
This is only one example of the absurdity of these editorials, yet even today (almost 90 years after Sjodahl's book was published) the Mesoamericanists hold onto these articles as if they were pearls of great price. When will the insanity end?
:)
Sjodahl also discusses the issue of naming animals, starting on page 95. I find his reasoning more persuasive than Sorenson's. At least Sjodahl doesn't propose the Nephites observed the Law of Moses by sacrificing rodents. But Sjodahl does focus on Mesoamerican species instead of the much more comparable North American species. Using the Spanish experience as an analogy is not a bad argument, but why insist the Nephites encountered tapirs and alpacas and llamas?
The answer: because the Mesoamerican theory boils down to hallucinating that "we read in the Book of Mormon... that Lehi went down by the Red Sea to the great southern ocean, and crossed over to this land, and landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien, and improved the country..."
"Just where the colony of Lehi landed in America the sacred record does not state."
Then, on the very next page, he writes:
"The following from the Times and Seasons is important regarding the question of landing:"
[he then quotes the Sept 15, 1842, article, including this section]
"When we read in the Book of Mormon... that Lehi went down by the Red Sea to the great southern ocean, and crossed over to this land, and landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien, and improved the country..."
Those italics are Sjodahl's. He doesn't seem to notice the inconsistency between the plain fact that the text does not say where Lehi landed, but the Times and Seasons article claims "we read in the Book of Mormon" exactly where they landed!
This is only one example of the absurdity of these editorials, yet even today (almost 90 years after Sjodahl's book was published) the Mesoamericanists hold onto these articles as if they were pearls of great price. When will the insanity end?
:)
Sjodahl also discusses the issue of naming animals, starting on page 95. I find his reasoning more persuasive than Sorenson's. At least Sjodahl doesn't propose the Nephites observed the Law of Moses by sacrificing rodents. But Sjodahl does focus on Mesoamerican species instead of the much more comparable North American species. Using the Spanish experience as an analogy is not a bad argument, but why insist the Nephites encountered tapirs and alpacas and llamas?
The answer: because the Mesoamerican theory boils down to hallucinating that "we read in the Book of Mormon... that Lehi went down by the Red Sea to the great southern ocean, and crossed over to this land, and landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien, and improved the country..."
No comments:
Post a Comment