[i] . For example, in 1888 George Reynolds wrote the following:

Some people have confused this ball, because it is called a compass, with the mariner's compass, that sailors use at sea to direct the course of their ships.  But there is a great difference between the two.  The Liahona pointed the way that Lehi's company should travel, while the needle in the mariner's compass points to the north.  The one showed the way Lehi should go, the other informs the traveler which way he is going.  The one was specially prepared by the Lord for Lehi and his companions, and was used through faith only; the other can be used by all men, whether believers in the true God, pagans or infidels.    At times, also, writing would miraculously appear on the Liahona, giving directions or reproving for sin, as the company most needed. (The Story of the Book of Mormon, Salt Lake City: Jos. Hyrum Parry, 1888, p. 35.)

In 1909 B. H. Roberts would write:

This curious instrument [the Liahona] in an incidental way is called a "compass" in several passages.  Whereupon, our opponents seek to bring the Book of Mormon in conflict with supposed historical facts by insisting that the Book of Mormon speaks of the people being in possession of "a mariner's compass, long before the invention of such an instrument!"  ("Story of the Mormons," Linn, p. 97) 

This writer [Linn] attributes the possession of the "compass" to the Jaredites.  Whether it is the slip of a careless writer or an effort on his part to make the matter of the "compass" in the Book of Mormon more ancient, is a question for him or his friends to explain.  Many other writers in their anxiety to find anachronisms in the Book of Mormon refer to this "compass."  Lamb is positively dishonest in the matter, since he assumes the existence of two instruments.  One he calls the "Director," and applies to it the description given above in the text, and the other he calls the "Compass," though clearly this latter word is used in an incidental way in describing the "Director."  This is the only way he could create the longed for anachronism and hence he adopted it.  This may secure his fame for ingenuity, but what of his honesty? (See "The Golden Bible" Chapter III., Subdivisions "C" and "D")

The director of the Nephites makes no pretensions to being a "Mariner's compass" of man's invention, and surely the description given above, supplemented as it is by a fuller description in the Book of Alma, where it is called "Liahona," must dispel all thought of this instrument being considered as an ordinary compass, such as is invented by men for navigating purposes; and which, as everybody knows, has but this one quality, namely, its needle constantly points northward because of the magnetic pole force, and mariners knowing one direction may ascertain others.  The silliness of argument, which even supposedly grave and reverend historians and essayists descend to on such a point, is illustrated by an alleged incident with which Linn stoops to render his pages luminous, by pretending to quote the manner in which "Mormons in Utah" are supposed to explain the alleged anachronism of the "compass."  He says:

The ease with which such an error could be explained is shown in an anecdote of a Utah Mormon, who, when told that the compass was not known in Bible times, responded by quoting Acts xxvii: 13, where Paul says: "And from thence we fetched a compass!"

That is, to quote the passage in full-"From thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium."

This is merely the repetition of an old, silly story told against the Mormons long before they arrived in Utah, and was invented by the Rev. Henry Caswell, author of "The Prophet of the Nineteenth Century," published in 1843.  It is of that order of stuff as the tales about the Prophet Joseph attempting to walk on the water, and his pretending to raise the simulated dead.  (B. H. Roberts, in New Witness for God, 3 vols., SLC: Deseret News, vol. 3, 1909, pp. 550-551, 561)

In 1970, in reviewing a book on Mark Twain for BYU Studies, Richard Cracroft writes:

He [Twain] turns to the passage in 1st Nephi in which Nephi notes that the family of Lehi used an instrument called the "Liahona" in finding their directions while en route from the Old World to the New.  Twain seizes on this instrument as an anachronistic "compass," noting smugly that the travelers appear to "have had the advantage of Noah," all the while ignoring the text's explanation that the so-called compass was a miraculously powered ball--not a magnetic compass--which operated commensurate to the faith of the travelers ... (Richard H. Cracroft, "The Gentle Blasphemer: Mark Twain, Holy Scripture, and the Book of Mormon," in BYU Studies, vol. 11 (1970-1971), Number 1 - Autumn 1970, p. 133.)

[ii] . In a 1991 article for FARMS Review of Books, reviewing Arthur Kocherhans Lehi's Isle of Promise, James Fluegel criticized Kocherhans for even suggesting that the directions pointed out by the Liahona even resembled magnetic compass directions of not only Joseph Smith's day but also modern-day magnetic compass directions.   In his book, Kocherhans had written:

The words "Red Sea" are Old Testament words and, by looking at Map 14, we can see that Lehi's compass or Liahona caused him to travel by what in 1828 still was called nearly "south-southeast" and nearly "east".  The compass direction co-ordinates of Joseph Smith's time and of our present day correspond to physical antiquity.

For our purpose in this work, we will rely upon the accuracy of these scriptures and Joseph Smith's translation of the ancient characters.  All further direction names such as east and west are consistent within the Book of Mormon and with 1828 compass co-ordinates and direction names.

Nephi had Lehi's compass in crossing the waters to the promised land.  It continued to be a recognized instrument of navigation among the Nephites (Alma 37:38, 43) and an instrument called a compass has continued to be used even down to our day for directional purposes. (Lehi's Isle of Promise, Placentia, California: Kobo Enterprises, 1989, pp. 97, 99)

James Fluegel wrote the following in his review:

Here is an example of how he [Kocherhans] insists that the language of the Joseph Smith translation forces Book of Mormon vocabulary to correspond with modern usage.  Various references to the 1828 edition of Noah Webster's Dictionary are supposed to form a scholarly link between the translation and conditions in the outside world.  But in this case, at least, there is no implication in the text of the Book of Mormon itself that the Liahona was a magnetic compass.  Rather, it is clearly described as a revelatory device dependent not upon magnetism but upon obedience to the Lord (1 Nephi 18:12). 

The Book of Mormon makes this explicit, but because the translation also uses "compass" and because Kocherhans interprets that only to be a magnetic compass, he has carefully thought himself into anachronism.  (Book Review: Arthur J. Kocherhans, Lehi's Isle of Promise: A Scriptural Account with Word Definitions and a Commentary, in FARMS Review of Books, vol. 3, 1991, pp. 97-99)

Interestingly, Fluegel didn't bother to explain how coincidental it was that a 16-part compass-like direction, "south-southeast," could appear in the Book of Mormon text and exactly correspond with the direction of the Frankincense Trail which ran parallel to the south-southeast oriented coast of the Red Sea.  Whatever the original word used by Nephi, it ultimately came through the mind of Joseph Smith and out of his mouth in words of his era when possible.  The question once again that Fluegel failed to address was why such a compass-specific term as "south-southeast" was used at all by Nephi and by Joseph Smith in translating.  Fluegel simply mandated that "there is no implication in the text of the Book of Mormon itself that the Liahona was a magnetic compass."  

[iii] . In a February,1961 article by Hugh Nibley ("The Liahona's Cousins," in The Improvement Era, vol 64, num. 2, pp. 87-111), after reviewing all the scriptures which treat the Liahona, he lists the salient features which they report.  He writes that one of these salient features of the Liahona was that "It was neither mechanical nor self-operating, but worked solely by the power of God.  It functioned only in response to the faith, diligence, and heed of those who followed it." (p. 89)   This in spite of the fact that the thrust of the article was to compare the similarity of the workings of the Liahona with the ancient divination technique of Belomancy, "the practice of shooting, tossing, shaking, or otherwise manipulating rods, darts, pointers, or other sticks, all originally derived from arrows." (p. 104)  Much of this material would be reprinted in 1967 by Nibley (since Cumorah, SLC: Deseret Book, pp. 283-296.)

In 1976 Daniel H. Ludlow would write: "The word compass as used here does not refer to the magnetic instrument of the mariner (the magnetic compass was apparently not known in the western world until about the twelfth century A.D.).  (A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon, SLC: Deseret Book, 1976, p. 116.)

In 1987 Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet would add their commentary: "This seeric device, later identified by Alma as the Liahona (Alma 37:38), was certainly not a compass in the conventional sense.  Rather than identify magnetic north, it pointed the direction that they should travel." (Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 4 vols., SLC: Bookcraft, vol. 1, 1987, p. 124)

In 1988 John L. Sorenson  would once again affirm the exclusively spiritual function of the Liahona, although he might have had ulterior motives in the fact that his theoretical geography of the Book of Mormon was not according to true cardinal directions.  He writes: "A course was laid by observing one of the spindles inside the Liahona or "compass," which "pointed the way whither we should go" (16:10; 18:12, 21).  I see no reason at all to suppose this device was magnetic, despite the term compass.  Rather it was faith operated." ("Transoceanic Crossings," in Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., First Nephi: The Doctrinal Foundation, Religious Studies Center: Brigham Young University, 1988, p. 263)

In a 2002 Conference of the FAIR organization, John A. Tvedtnes of the FARMS organization delivered an address entitled, "The Mistakes of Men: Can the Scriptures be Error-Free?" in which he said the following:

According to the Book of Mormon, Lehi used a "compass" to guide him in his travels to the New World (1 Nephi 18:12-14; Alma 37:38).  Critics are wont to point out that the magnetic compass was discovered in the late middle ages in China and was unknown in the ancient Near East.  Though the word "compass" in our day usually denotes a device used to determine the direction of magnetic north, it need not have that meaning in the Book of Mormon. 

The word "compass" may have been the closest equivalent of the original word available to Joseph Smith in the English language.  Moreover, "compass" has several other meanings in English and originally meant "circle" (as in the compass useds to draw circles).  The word "compass" also appears a number of times in the King James Version of the Bible, usually as a verb but sometimes as a noun (Exodus 27:5; 38:4; 1 Kings 7:35; Isaiah 44:13). 

We should also note that the fact that the Lord had to "prepare" the device for Lehi implies that it was an instrument not known in his day.  So we don't have to worry about whether it was a magnetic compass or not, on the grounds that such an instrument didin't exist at that time.  The Lord surely knew the principles on which the magnetic compass works, and could have provided one for Lehi.  But it's unlikely that this is what the Book of Mormon intended.  (http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/
2002_Can_the_Scriptures_be_Error-Free.html)

In a 2003 article entitled "Liahona," by Neal Elwood Lambert in the Book of Mormon Reference Companion we find the following:

Liahona  A device miraculously provided by the Lord to Lehi and his family which gave divine directions and instructions to them for their travels to the land of promise ... This "ball, or director" (Alma 37:38) functioned only "according to the faith and diligence and heed" which the people gave to it (1 Ne. 16:28).  (Book of Mormon Reference Companion, Dennis L. Largey ed., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2003, p. 519)

In an August 17, 2004 devotional address given during Campus Education Week, Lance B. Wickman, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy stated the following:

He [Lehi] knew something of the lifesaving qualities of a reliable compass.  The Liahona guided him — its bearings not coming from a magnetic field but rather through a function of "faith and diligence and heed" (1 Nephi 16:28).   (http://speeches.byu.edu/htmlfiles/
Wickman_Lance_08_2004.html)

[iv] .  In reviewing another author who linked the Liahona with magnetism, John L. Sorenson writes:

She falls into a nominalist fallacy (p. 278) by letting the translated word 'compass' determine how she thinks about the 'Liahona.'  By considering the latter to fit into the same lexical domain as modern English "compass," she supposes that the device must have pointed out (cardinal) directions to Lehi and Nephi.  But magnetism could not have been the operative basis, since faith was (see Alma 38:40).  If operative on the natural, magnetic principle, why would the Liahona have ceased functioning as soon as Nephi was tied up (1 Ne. 18:12) and start again when he was released?  And how would a magnetic compass produce written messages (see 1 Ne. 16:26-27)?  Clearly the Liahona was only vaguely like compasses we know; it was called by the same English word because, indeed, it was a direction pointer, but what it pointed to was the Lord's choice of route, not a fixed direction based on magnetism.  (Review of Deanne G. Matheny, "Does the Shoe Fit? a Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec Geography," in FARMS Review of Books,  vol. 6, no. 1 (1994), p. 310.) 

[v] . The following are comments on some of the complications of reading a compass:

"The Compass shows magnetic north, not true north.  Keep it away from anything made of iron or steel" [which affect the reading]. ("Beehive-Girls, Honor Badge No. 111," in Improvement Era, No. 5,  May,1935)

"Magnetic storms affect compass needles all over the earth at the same time.  A violent magnetic storm in April, 1938, changed compass direction by several degrees within an hour, and in London, England, more than five degrees." (Franklin S. Harris Jr., "Exploring the Universe," Improvement Era, No. 3, March 1941)

"At this time, a compass set in Maine will point 18 [degrees] west of the true north, while at the same time one at Fort Yukon in Alaska will point about 36 [degrees] east of north; . . . making a difference in courses, between extreme points east and west, of fifty four degrees." (James H. Martineau, "The Magnetic Needle," in The Contributor, vol. 5, April 1884, No. 7)

"another error relative to the magnetic needle is, that it points in the same direction throughout the day.  In addition to its yearly or "secular variation," it has also a daily variation." (Ibid.)

Another very common misunderstanding is the idea that if a compass be set pointing truly north and south, that by turning it to a right angle it will give a true east and west course, running an indefinite distance in either direction.  This is not true, from the fact that while a true north and south line is straight, a true east and west line is not straight but curved.  For a short distance this curvature is not perceptible to the eye, but at the distance of half a mile or more becomes sufficient to lead an inexperienced person into difficulty if not taken into account;  the difference between the true and apparent courses increasing rapidly as the length of the course run increases. (Ibid.)

"The question now arises-if the magnetic needle is so unreliable and uncertain, what is it good for?  We answer that in the hands of one who understands its deficiencies and errors and knows how to correct them, it becomes of considerable value, giving a close approximation to a true course . . ." (Ibid.)

[vi] . Robert L. Bunker, "The Design of the Liahona and the Purpose of the Second Spindle," in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies , Vol. 3 No. 2, Fall 1994, p. 4, notes 4 & 5. 

Bunker also writes of a differing interpretation.  He notes that "the Book of Mormon Student Manual: Religion 121 & 122 (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1989), 16, under the heading 'The Liahona,' suggests that the antecedent of all the pronouns in this verse is the 'writing' on the outside of the Liahona."  However, it is hard find substance for this argument that "the writing on the outside of the Liahona" could be the antecedent for the pronoun "them."  The only other plural in the set of verses quoted is "things which are written," but here too one would find it difficult to say "And there was also written upon them (meaning the 'things which are written') a new writing."  People don't tend to write " a new writing" "upon things which are written."   

As a sidenote, there is an illustration of the Liahona with a second spindle which accompanies Bunker's article.

[vii] . In 1950 in discussing the meanings derived from the word "Liahona," Hugh Nibley dismissed the idea of finding any definitive parallel.  He wrote:

The name [Liahona] suggests so many possible Hebrew and Egyptian interpretations (it is, "being interpreted, a compass," Alma 37:38) that one man's guess is as good as another's, and it does not concern us here since, as a miraculous thing, it has no parallel in everyday life. ( Hugh Nibley, The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley: Volume 5 The Book of Mormon.  Lehi in the Desert, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company and Provo: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988, p. 109) 

However, in his 3rd edition of the Melchizedek Priesthood Manual An Approach to the Book of Mormon first published in 1957, he modified his opinion. He writes:

A year after the manual appeared, those Cambridge scholars who first brought "patternism" to light issued an important volume summarizing the work of the past two decades and bringing their conclusions up to date.  Suffice it to say that their work confirms all the basic features of "patternism" and fully supports our chapter on the subject-chapter 23 in the manual.  In the following year (1959) an Arab scholar published a study on prehistoric Semitic arrow-divination which has allowed us to bestow a certificate of plausibility on the mysterious Liahona. (p. xv.)

In February, 1961, an article by Hugh Nibley ("The Liahona's Cousins") appeared in The Improvement Era. (Hugh Nibley, "The Liahona's Cousins," in The Improvement Era (vol 64, num. 2), pp. 87-111)   In that article Nibley compared the working of the spindles in the Liahona to Arab divining sticks and the practice of Belomancy.  On page 104 he writes:

Belomancy is the practice of divination by shooting, tossing, shaking, or otherwise manipulating rods, darts, pointers, or other sticks, all originally derived from arrows.  Over ten years ago the present writer made a fairly exhaustive study of ancient arrow-divination, and some years later presented in the pages of the Era a long discourse on the ritual use of sticks and rods, especially in ancient Israel. ("The Stick of Judah and the Stick of Joseph."  Improvement Era, Vol. 56, Jan. to May, 1953)   Yet it was not until he saw Fahd's study, the first full-length treatment of old Semitic arrow-divination, that it dawned upon him that these old practices might have some connection with the Liahona.

Fahd begins by pointing out that the "arrows" used in divination, called qid-h or zalam, were devoid of heads and feathers, being mere shafts or pointers. (T. Fahd, "Une Prutique cleromantique a la Ka'ba preislamique," Semitica, VIII, 1958, p. 61 )   Since Lane has given a fuller description of these objects from the sources, we can do no better than quote his quotations.

"zalam, pl. azlam [divining-] arrows by means of which the Arabs in Time of Ignorance (i.e. before Islam) sought to know what was allotted to them: they were arrows upon which the Arabs in the Time of Ignorance wrote "Command" [on one] and "Prohibition" [on the other]; or upon some of which was written "My Lord hath commanded me"; and upon some, "My Lord hath forbidden me": or there were three arrows ; upon one of which was written "My Lord hath commanded me"; etc. ... and the third was blank; and they put them in a receptacle, and took forth an arrow; and if the arrow upon which was "Command" came forth, he went to accomplish his purpose; but if that upon which "Prohibition" was written came forth, he refrained; and if the blank came forth, they shuffled the second time . . . (E. W. Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, I, 1247, s.v. zalam.)  

[viii] . FARMS seems to concur with Nibley's viewpoint.  On their website under the title "Liahona" ("Other Evidence of the Week") we find a quote from Nibley:

A ... study by an Arabic scholar has called attention to the long-forgotten custom of the ancient Arabs and Hebrews of consulting two headless arrows whenever they were about to undertake a journey; the usual thing was to consult the things at a special shrine, though it was common also to take such divination arrows along on the trip in a special container.  The message of the arrows, which were mere sticks without heads or feathers, was conveyed by their pointing and especially by the inscriptions that were on them, giving detailed directions as to the journey. (Nibley, Prophetic Book of Mormon, 244, 245).

This quote is also part of an article by Kevin Christensen ("Dan Vogel, Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review of Books, vol. 2 (1990), p. 221), in which he says the following:

Vogel also ignores the Old World context of the Book of Mormon completely.  For example, consider the context in which Vogel discusses the Liahona.  "Debates about such ocean crossings often turned on questions about navigation.  Many argued against migration by sea since the ancients had no knowledge of the mariner's compass."(p. 45).   For Vogel, the Liahona is best explained as an anachronistic response to local debate.

Although the mariner's compass had not yet been invented, the Lord provided Lehi with a compass-like instrument, described as a "round [brass] ball of curious workmanship."  Inside the ball were "two spindles," one of which "pointed the way whither we should go into the wilderness." (p. 51)

Where Vogel sees a magnetic mariner's compass, Hugh Nibley approaches the text against the purported context and provides an alternate picture.

The Liahona was a hollow bronze sphere in which were mounted two pointers, headless arrows that bore mysterious inscriptions and pointed the way that Lehi's party should travel in the desert.  Besides pointing the direction, the arrows and the inscriptions also provided special instructions for the journey.  They only worked during the expedition to the new World, after which they ceased to function.

A recent study by an Arabic scholar has called attention to the long-forgotten custom of the ancient Arabs and Hebrews of consulting two headless arrows whenever they were about to undertake a journey; the usual thing was to consult the things at a special shrine, though it was common also to take such divination arrows along on the trip in a special container.  The message of the arrows, which were mere sticks without heads or feathers, was conveyed by their pointing and especially by the inscriptions that were on them, giving detailed directions as to the journey. (See Hugh W. Nibley, "the Liahona's Cousins," Improvement Era 64 (1961: 87-89, 104-6, 108-11; in CWHN 7:251-63)

Where Vogel sees a magnetic mariner's compass, Hugh Nibley approaches the text against the purported context and provides an alternative picture.

This idea is also supported in an article by John M. Lundquist, "Biblical Seafaring and the Book of Mormon," which appears in the Appendix (171-175) of Raphael Patai, The Children of Noah: Jewish Seafaring in Ancient Times, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1998.

Another analysis of the Liahona appears in the FARMS Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.  Under the title "The Design of the Liahona and the Purpose of the Second Spindle," Robert L. Bunker discusses the idea of two pointers being confirmatory of one another.  He also comments on the idea that there was writing on the pointers: "The amount of text inscribed on the pointers cannot be ascertained from Nephi's description, but the physical size of the writing must have been small; otherwise, the observation that it "was plain to be read" (1 Nephi 16:29) would have been unnecessary."  (Journal of Book of Mormon Studies , Vol. 3 Num. 2 (Fall, 1994), p. 5)

[ix] . Although the mention of "famine" in conjunction with the Liahona in Mosiah 1:17 might imply that there were times in the desert that directions might have been uncertain.

[x] . Although iron is easily magnetized, it also loses its magnetism relatively quickly.  Steel, on the other hand, retains its magnetism for an extended period of time.  It will be remembered that Laban's sword was made of "steel" (1 Ne 4:9) and that Nephi might have been able to copy this metallurgical technique (2 Ne 5:14).  Thus "steel" might have been available at the time.

[xi] . In an Internet article entitled "History of Chinese Invention-Invention of the Magnetic Compass," (www.computersmiths.com)  there appears an illustration with the following caption: "The figure to the right shows a working model of the first instrument known to be a compass.  The spoon is of magnetic loadstone, and the plate is of bronze.  See also John W. Welch, "Lodestone and the Liahona," in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, SLC: Deseret Book Company and Provo:FARMS, 1992, p. 44.

[xii] . This material was later reprinted as "Lodestone and the Liahona," in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, John W. Welch ed., SLC: Deseret Book Company and Provo: FARMS, 1992, p. 44.

[xiii] . "Dan Vogel's Reply to Kevin Christensen," 2002 by Dan Vogel.  Used by Permission of author on Mormon Central, www.xmission.com/~research/centrall/reply.htm, p. 8 of 43.

[xiv] .  Websters New World Dictionary of the American Language  (College Edition), New York: The World Publishing Co., 1964, p. 1403.  

[xv] . In my studies I have found that this sixteen-part directional term is significant because historically and biblically, there are some who propose that directions were not always divided into sixteen variations.  Moreover, this sixteen-part directional system came to be associated with the magnetic compass.  The chronological evolution from four directions, to eight directions, to sixteen, 32, etc. will be discussed in another part of this paper (see part 3).  The subject of divination and its association with the sixteen directions will also be discussed.