© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
This kind of linguistic-literary analysis really resonates with me! Your article inspired numerous ideas that I am going mull around for a long time! Splendid!
I do think that the text in Alma indicating spindles “should point the way that they should go” and Nephi’s statement indicating that one spindle indicated the way that they should go in the wilderness to be helpful in understanding the function. Bunker’s approach has the shortfall that he doesn’t explain how they would know when the ball wasn’t telling them a route of travel as opposed to where Nephi had to go to get food, and it more or less ignores Nephi’s statement of one spindle. Alma’s statement indicates that both spindles are used for direction. Nephi’s doesn’t say they both weren’t use for direction, it just said that one was used for their direction of primary travel in the wilderness. That does indicate the other was used to provide direction to food, water, etc. perhaps in conjunction with the other spindle. As you indicate, there is an indication that both the spindles and the ball itself had text that would periodically appear, so there are a variety of possibilities. Nephi indicated that there were directions “given upon the ball.” In any event, I think the language is broad enough to accommodate a variety of physical configurations of two spindles, where only one had the primary function of leading them when they were actually traveling as a group through the wilderness, and the other, either by itself or in conjunction with the first, provided directions to other things.
Jerry, thanks for your comments. I agree with you that Nephi’s and Alma’s language is broad enough to allow for a variety of explanations regarding the operation of the Liahona. The operation that I propose is but one possibility.
That said, I disagree with a few of the points that you made. Just to be precise, Nephi did not write that “one spindle indicated the way that they should go in the wilderness.” Rather, he wrote that “the one pointed the way….” As I explain in the article, Hebrew can allow us to understand “the one” as “together” or “united.” While “the one,” which has been traditionally understood as meaning “only one” – an interpretation based on a limited reading of the English text – is a possibility, as I indicate in the paper, that would make this verse anomalous in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Second, you wrote that Nephi’s record indicated that “one [spindle] was used for their direction of primary travel in the wilderness.” This idea of “primary travel” is not found anywhere in the Book of Mormon; the text only tells us that Lehi’s party traveled in the wilderness and accross the sea.
Third, Bunker’s proposal, as addressed in his article, provides a simple but elegant way of knowing when the Liahona was “working,” or indicating a “route of travel,” and when it was not. According to Bunker, when the two spindles were aligned with each other – when they appeared as one spindle – Lehi and his party could follow the direction of the united spindles with certainty. However, when the spindles were not aligned – Bunker proposes that they may have formed an X – the party knew that the Liahona was not working properly. So, contrary to ignoring “Nephi’s statement of one spindle,” Bunker actually explains how the two spindles became one, together. Again, simple in design and function like Moses’s brass serpent, yet simultaneously elegant in operation. All that was required of both the Liahona and the brass serpent was for the people to look to them with faith. And as I point out in the article, these are but types showing our need to look to Christ with faith.
You wrote, “That does indicate the other was used to provide direction to food, water, etc. perhaps in conjunction with the other spindle.” As I explain in the paper, the only person to assert this idea is Gladden Bishop. And, as I believe I thoroughly supported in the paper, Gladden Bishop was either a charlatan or he was impaired by serious mental illness. It is reported that Joseph Smith even referred to Bishop and a “fool” during his excommunication. Either way, there is no way we should place credence in Bishop’s account. If we are to accept Bishop’s description of the Liahona, which he claims to have received from the “Ancient of days,” should we also accept that he held it in his hand along with the other “Sacred Things”? Did Bishop wear the ornately bejeweled crowns, as he said he did, and did he really receive the 116 lost pages of the Book of Mormon manuscript, as he claimed? If so, where are the pages today? They were not found among Bishop’s possessions when he died. Is it fair to select the parts of Bishop’s story that we like while ignoring the rest? We need to remember that Bishop never claimed to learn of any of the “Sacred Things” from anyone other than the “Ancient of days” himself. Bishop’s 7 “Sacred Things” included:
1. the gold plates;
2. the Urim and Thummim;
3. the breastplate;
4. the Liahona;
5. the sword of Laban;
6. a small silver “Crown of Israel” representing the Aaronic priesthood; and,
7. a larger gold “Crown of Glory” representing the Melchizedek priesthood.
Bishop provided extensive descriptions of each of these items, and of the messenger that delivered them to him. While he did not place the 116 pages among the 7 “Sacred Things,” he did claim to possess them. Being in possession of these “Sacred Things” and having been ordained a high priest by an angel, Bishop claimed to be the rightful successor to God’s church and kingdom on the earth. Clearly, that did not happen. How, then, are we to have confidence in anything that he wrote?
My comment as to “primary” was meaning when they traveled as a group through the wilderness and beyond as opposed to an individual foray for food, which actually is described differently in the text. I’m actually a civil engineer with specialization in surveying so am quite familiar with Bunker’s premise, but it is but one possibility, and as I said, Bunker did not address the issue of finding food and whether he thought the spindles were involved. Alignment of spindles is not really enough, one has to know why and for what purpose the spindles are aligning. In short, I have to know what I am surveying in order to make use of any directional instrument. Perhaps the spindles were inactive for most of the eight year period, only being operational when they were actually traveling on a leg of the journey. Also the language of 1 Nephi 18:21 could reasonably be interpreted that one had to actually physically do something with the Liahona for it to function, so Bunkers approach doesn’t appear to accommodate that interpretation where the Bishop method would and Bunker doesn’t really discuss it. I do find your critique of Don Bradley’s approach not to be an accurate representation of what Don actually has said (at least to me) which was that Gladden Bishop got the information from elsewhere by others who saw the Liahona. I don’t think Don has ever represented to me that Gladden Bishop was a righteous man and had some sort of revelation about the Liahona. Just because one is an apostate does not mean correct information cannot pass through such a person. As far as your interpretation of the underlying Egyptian (or perhaps reformed Egyptian) of the small plates in Hebrew, it looks like another possibility. It seems as if a lot of BOM research involves people having to “subscribe” to one interpretation. I think that where there are multiple possibilities that the text accommodates, I remain open minded until more information is available that rules out a particular possibility.
I am curious about your statement that the Lapham account had to be at least third hand and I didn’t see any citation in your article. What information are you relying on to state that Joseph Smith Sr may not have been able to read the manuscript?
Also, as I was running out of the maximum reply space in my previous post, there is one additional issue. It does seem as if your criticism of the Lapham and Bishop historical sources runs aground when you fail to mention that the Bunker configuration that you are promoting so heavily has NO historical sources whatsoever in support of it. While the the Lapham and Bishop sources have their problems, at least they are historical sources.
Jerry, Thanks again for your comments. I do not want to turn this comment board into a bashing or a defense of Bradley’s book. Just for the record, when I submitted my first draft of the paper I intentionally did not compare my proposal with any others, including Bradley’s. However, an anonymous Interpreter reviewer specifically asked me to compare my theory with Bradley’s, so I did.
You wrote: “Alignment of spindles is not really enough, one has to know why and for what purpose the spindles are aligning.” Two potential solutions come to mind. First, if Nephi, for example, had just prayed to know where to go to find food and then the spindles unitedly pointed a direction, that would provide the same information as if one spindle pointed the direction while the other pointed to a food symbol. Second, we know that words appeared on the Liahona, probably on the spindles, so that could also give the additional information. However, solution 1 seems to suffice. I do not believe that the Liahona functioned randomly or constantly. Based on Alma’s language, it seems to have functioned once they exercised their faith, most likely by praying. Your suggestion that the spindles may have been inactive for most of the journey is probably accurate, in my opinion.
It is possible that 1 Nephi 18:21 could be interpreted as you say, However, there is no indication that Nephi did anything with the Liahona other than to hold it, have desire, and pray. Nephi uses three verbs in a self-referencing way in this verse: I took the compass; I desired; and, I prayed. None of these verbs indicate that he physically manipulated the compass in any way.
You wrote: “Just because one is an apostate does not mean correct information cannot pass through such a person.” You are correct. However, Bishop’s character does affect his credibility. He told some wild and crazy stories that can only characterize him as either a charlatan, mentally ill, or a third possibility, he was deceived by the devil, as was Korihor. There is no documentary evidence that Bishop gathered his various descriptions of any of the “sacred things” from Martin Harris. The only documentary evidence is what Gladden Bishop himself wrote, that he physically received the items from the Ancient of days and was thus able to describe them.
You wrote: “What information are you relying on to state that Joseph Smith Sr may not have been able to read the manuscript?” Joseph and Martin recorded the first 116 pages in Harmony, PA, more than 100 miles walking distance from Palmyra. There is no indication that Joseph Sr. visited Harmony during the transcription of the lost pages. Martin took the pages back to Palmyra and showed them to his wife and to several others. While that could include Joseph Sr., we have no evidence of that happening. I believe that any information from the lost pages that Joseph Sr. might have heard must have come from Joseph Jr. rather than from a perusal of the pages at Martin’s house. If I am correct, that makes Joseph Sr. a second-hand witness, at best. If Lapham really did talk to Joseph Sr. – Lapham is our only witness of that alleged encounter – then Lapham’s account is one more step removed and is thus third-hand information.
In my paper I do state that Bunker’s approach is an engineering one. You are correct that he does not cite any historical sources, like Bishop. However, care should be taken to not fall into the logical fallacy that the antiquity of a document has any bearing on its credibility. There exists no causal link between antiquity and credibility, especially when the author has an agenda. Far too many ancient rulers, the Pharaohs come to mind, have written of their victories in battle when in fact they suffered humiliating defeats.
I actually don’t have a position supporting one configuration of the Liahona over the other as different configurations can meet all the requirements found in the Book of Mormon text. Any analysis or comparison should be equally and fairly evaluated. Bunkers works for the spindle but offered no information about the rest of the Liahona function and had no historical support. Bradley’s proposed configuration does appear to meet the language of the text, and had some nexus in historical documents, however flawed they may be as you have made a case. The astrolabe case has been made but has some definite scientific problems as I pointed out in comments to their article (it may be possible to have the Liahona work utilizing some of the astrolabe principles, but as you mention our current information does not indicate ball astrolabes that far back. The reality is that there are ways the Liahona could function technically based on its description in the text. But we don’t really know for sure which is correct.
What about an astrolabe or something similar as has been suggested before? “By Small Means”: Rethinking the Liahona. Gervais and Joyce. 2018. Interpreter Journal? Perhaps you mentioned it and I missed it?
Lehn, thanks for your question. You did not miss it. I have rejected any connection between the Liahona and astrolabes, and I intentionally avoided any discussion of them for several reasons. Here are my top three:
1. Almost all known astrolabes are flat disks (planispheric) rather than spheres, and the date of their invention is generally accepted as being well after the time of Lehi. Spherical astrolabes are considered to be of even later date. As far as we know, the first “universal” astrolabe that could be used anywhere in the world was invented after the rise of Islam.
2. Contrary to what some have stated, nothing in or on a spherical astrolabe can be reasonably construed to resemble a spindle. Whether one consults Webster’s modern or 1828 dictionary, a spindle is best described as a straight narrow rod or stick with tapered ends. The fact that spindles are associated with spinning reinforces this shape. Spindles are not present on spherical astrolabes, and the Liahona was definitely spherical. We are also told that the spindles on the Liahona were “within” it and not on its surface.
3. The Book of Mormon describes the Liahona as a faith-based tool rather than a device that required mental calculations and physical manipulation by its user.
There was a third source of information on the Liahona: some kind of screen that displayed words that changed from time to time. See 1 Nephi 16:26-29. In the following verse 30, we read: “And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did go forth up into the top of the mountain, according to the directions which were given upon the ball.” Note that the word directions is plural indicating that there could have been three distinct sources of information. I am speculating the following:
1- top pointer (showing the direction to go)
2- pictograph pointer (to different categories such as game, oasis, river, etc. This pointer could have been manually set by the user.)
3- variable display screen (not only are words of wisdom or warnings given but it could have displayed the number of steps to take or cubits or furlongs).
How to tell if the top pointer was functioning or not? It could have spun erratically if the clan was being unfaithful. All of which could have been explained in detail in the Lost 116 pages?
Brian, thanks for your comments. The only source for a “pictograph pointer,” as you call it, is Gladden Bishop. However, Bishop indicates that both spindles were “pictograph” pointers, not just one. In my opinion, cobbling together parts from one story (Bishop, for example) and divergent elements from another (Lapham, for example) to try and find a cohesive explanation for the Liahona only leaves us with Frankenstein’s monster. In addition, for the reasons that I explained in my paper, Gladden Bishop “was either a religious con man or he was troubled by delusions brought on by serious mental illness. Either way, Bishop’s words cannot be trusted to have originated with either Martin Harris, Joseph Smith Jr., or any other trusted primary source.”
Regarding your proposed “display screen,” the best source for this is 1 Nephi 16:26-30 where Nephi wrote:
“And it came to pass that the voice of the Lord said unto him: Look upon the ball, and behold the things which are written. And it came to pass that when my father beheld the things which were written upon the ball, he did fear and tremble exceedingly, and also my brethren and the sons of Ishmael and our wives. 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. 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. And thus we see that by small means the Lord can bring about great things. And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did go forth up into the top of the mountain, according to the directions which were given upon the ball.”
First, Nephi was told to “look upon the ball, and behold the things which are written.” The word for “things” and “words” in Hebrew is the same – דברים (devarim). So, the “things” written upon the ball could also have been translated as “the words which are written.”
Second, in the first two verses we are told that the “things [words]” were written “upon the ball,” a somewhat nonspecific description. However, in verse 28, Nephi mentioned “the pointers which were in the ball” and explained that they worked “according to the faith and diligence and heed which we did give unto them.” The antecedent of the pronoun “them” is the plural noun “pointers.” In the next verse we are told that “there was also written upon them a new writing.” Again, the antecedent to “them” is the same: “pointers.” From this it appears that the “things”, or the words, which were written “upon the ball” were actually written upon the pointers of the ball. No other explanation fits grammatically. This, then, implies that the spindles were probably flattened along the top, at least somewhat, in order for writing to appear and be read. So, rather than a “display screen” it appears that the spindles themselves displayed the words of the Lord.
Regarding the word “directions,” it functions as a synonym for “things,” or words: “the directions which were given upon the ball.” This becomes clear once we observe that Nephi uses the verb “give” as a synonym for “write.” For example:
“AND now I, Nephi, do not give the genealogy of my fathers in this part of my record; neither at any time shall I give it after upon these plates which I am writing; for it is given in the record which has been kept by my father; wherefore, I do not write it in this work…. And it mattereth not to me that I am particular to give a full account of all the things of my father, for they cannot be written upon these plates, for I desire the room that I may write of the things of God.” (1 Nephi 6:1, 3).
In these two verses we observe that Nephi uses the verbs “give” and “write” synonymously and interchangeably. So, I believe that “the directions which were given upon the ball” were actually the words which were written upon the spindles.
Congratulations on an interesting article. Allow me to add a few observations:
In his 1922 Hebrew translation of the Book of Mormon, Zvi Hirsch Miller provided some interesting equivalents:
1 Ne 16:10 kaddûr ˁāgûl maˁăśê ḥōšēb něḥōšet mûṣāq ûbětôḥô šěnê kîšûrîm ʼăšer ʼeḥād môre derek
1 Ne 18:12 hamměḥûgâ
Mosiah 1:16 hakkaddûr ʼô hammanḥîg
Alma 37:38 kaddûr ʼô môre derek….lēyyahonâ wětargîmû môre yāšār
I do not have at hand the 1981 Shunary translation published by the LDS Church (out of print).
However, given the function of the Liahona as a “ball”-shaped “director” or “compass” (1 Ne 16:10-29; Mosiah 1:16, Alma 37:38-47) which helped Lehi’s party find their way from one encampment to another, the most likely etymology is hypothetical Hebrew *layaḥōne “Encamping for Yah,” using the participial form of the Hebrew verb ḥānā, “to pitch (tent), encamp, dwell” (cf. cognate ancient Egyptian hn “tent”), namely ḥōne, “encamps” (Psalm 34:8 [KJV 34:7] “the angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him, and delivers them”; 53:6 [KJV 53:5]; Ex 18:5; plural ḥōnîm at Ex 14:9, Num 2:27, 3:38, 2 Sam 11:11, and the root frequently throughout Exodus and Numbers; Exodus 33 alone lists 13 stations/ encampments, reusing that verb each time). The Hebrew pataḥ following initial lamed (Deut 14:1, Psalm 136:1 laYHWH) creates the diphthong -ay- as used in the Deseret Alphabet pronunciation ??????? (laɪæhoʊnæ). “Encamped for Yah,” therefore, would fit the notion of the Lehites engaged in a similar “Exodus” in stages (beginning with their encampment in the neighborhood of ancient Midian, in the Valley of Lemuel), in an account filled with explicit Exodus motifs.
As to its functional nature (as we learned in scouting), a magnetic compass generally had two spindles, one to indicate magnetic north, and another to set the azimuth. Likewise, a geometric compass has two legs (dividing callipers), and was used anciently to find directions, as well as to calculate relative distances. This latter function might even apply to early sextants or astrolabes.
Alma 37:38 declares that Liahona by interpretation is a “compass,” that is, either (1) a double-spindled instrument for inscribing circles (which we have all used in geometry class), or (2) a circle or globe itself. In a more general sense, Liahona connotes an aid to help find the desired direction. Therefore, whatever etymology is proposed must not do violence to these meanings of the word “compass” (Proverbs 8:27 Hebrew ḥûg; Isaiah 44:13 mĕḥûgâ = LXX Greek metron; Job 26:10 Hebrew ḥāg).
Robert, thanks for your comment. Your “Encamping for Yah” is definitely a possibility for the origin of the word Liahona, as are other suggestions as well. However, in proposing this solution I would spell it as two words, like this: לְיָהּ חֹנָה [lejah chonah]. And I would prefer חֹנָה [chonah] over חֹנֶה [choneh] (see 1 Chronicles 11:15 for the use of חֹנָה). However, the issue that I see with this suggestion is the ה at the end of both words. If this represents the origin of the word, why does our liahona not at least have the letter h at the end of the word?
With regard to Alma 37:38, the word compass is interesting. Based on what you wrote it appears that you believe that whatever word Alma used must have been related to circles. While I agree that this is a possibility, I do not see that as a requirement. The use of the word compass in the English translation could merely be referring to “an instrument for directing or ascertaining [one’s] course.” Both Mormon (Mosiah 1:16) and Alma (Alma 37:38 and Alma 37:45) refer to the Liahona as a director.
There’s another possibility for the two spindles that are actually one. Please see the compass pictured here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Compass#/media/File:Kompas_Sofia.JPG
How many spindles does it have? Two, one pointing north and the other pointing south–and yet the two are actually one. If the Liahona spindles worked in the same way, it could have been exactly what Alma says it was: a compass. There’s no need for elaborate speculation about what the “second” spindle might have been.
Jack, thanks for your comment. What you propose is interesting but untenable. The picture of the compass that you linked only has one spindle, and two ends. By definition, a spindle is a “slender rounded rod with tapered ends.” So, two spindles would require four ends, not two. Nephi is very clear to tell us that “within the ball were two spindles,” not two ends.
Wonderful analysis. The article notes, “The biblical words translated as spindle and whorl connect with the concepts of straight and round — tying us into the idea of God’s paths being straight and his course one eternal round.”
This also connects with compass and square.