Irr Misses Again

[Bernard Gui]

In his critique of chapter 44 of the Gospel Doctrines manual, we find the following statement:

"According to the Book of Mormon, the American continents were populated as the result of three separate migrations of people from the Middle East."

The Book of Mormon does not make this claim.

Bernard

Edited March 13, 2012 by Ares

[zerinus]

In his critique of chapter 44 of the Gospel Doctrines manual, we find the following statement:

"According to the Book of Mormon, the American continents were populated as the result of three separate migrations of people from the Middle East."

The Book of Mormon does not make this claim.

Bernard

You gave the wrong reference. It is in his critique of chapter 42, not 44. And he is right, insofar as the Book of Mormon mentions only those three migrations, and excludes any others (2 Nephi 1:8.).

Edited March 13, 2012 by Ares

[Bernard Gui]

Continents? The Book of Mormon says continents?

Bernard

[Vance]

In his critique of chapter 44 of the Gospel Doctrines manual, we find the following statement:

"According to the Book of Mormon, the American continents were populated as the result of three separate migrations of people from the Middle East."

The Book of Mormon does not make this claim.

Bernard

Bowman often gets it wrong.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Vance

[zerinus]

Continents? The Book of Mormon says continents?

Bernard

That is an odd word to use, I agree. I would be inclined to regard the whole of North and South America as one continent. He seems to regard it as two. But in either case, the Book of Mormon regards the whole of America (North and South) to be a "land of promise," reserved for God's special people.

[thesometimesaint]

Zerinus:

I would be inclined to regard the whole of North and South America as one continent.

Hemisphere not continent.

the Book of Mormon regards the whole of America (North and South) to be a "land of promise,"

I don't believe that statement is supportable from the BoM.

[Freedom]

The Book of Mormon mentions three specific groups but suggests there may have been many others. Nowhere does it suggest that the entire population of the promised land was produced by these three specific groups.

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You wrote:

In his critique of chapter 44 {i.e., chapter 42} of the Gospel Doctrines manual, we find the following statement:

"According to the Book of Mormon, the American continents were populated as the result of three separate migrations of people from the Middle East."

The Book of Mormon does not make this claim.

I am aware of the fact that Mormon scholars and apologists in the BYU/Maxwell/FAIR tradition dispute this claim. In the article you quote, I discuss their view that the people of the three Middle Eastern migrations mixed with larger populations already in the Americas. So I didn't "miss" this. The question is disputed even among faithful Mormons. I cannot reasonably be faulted for stating a position shared by many faithful Mormons, especially if I also mention the alternative position.

[KevinG]

It does not matter which subset of Mormons think something... If the Book of Mormon itself does not make the claim "the American continents were populated as the result of three separate migrations of people from the Middle East" then it should not be published as such in your study guide.

[Rob Bowman]

KevinG,

You wrote:

It does not matter which subset of Mormons think something... If the Book of Mormon itself does not make the claim "the American continents were populated as the result of three separate migrations of people from the Middle East" then it should not be published as such in your study guide.

You're missing the point, which is that many faithful Mormons think the Book of Mormon does make that claim -- and I agree with them.

[zerinus]

Zerinus:

I would be inclined to regard the whole of North and South America as one continent.

Hemisphere not continent.

That is semantics. What is your definition of continent? Why isn't America a continent?

the Book of Mormon regards the whole of America (North and South) to be a "land of promise,"

I don't believe that statement is supportable from the BoM.

I believe it is. The Book of Mormon speaks of all of America (North and South) to be the "land of promise". See 1 Nephi 2:20; 10:13; 22:7; 2 Nephi 1:3-11; 3 Nephi 16:8; Ether 2:7-12; Ether 13:2-4.

That scripture reference, by the way, when searched for in the old scripture site yields this result, which is brilliant! The same expression put in the new scripture site yields this result, which is a disaster!

Okay, I am going to keep on shaming them until they either scrap the new scripture site and replace it with the old one; or improve the search capability of the new scripture site.

Edited March 13, 2012 by zerinus

[KevinG]

KevinG,

You wrote:

You're missing the point, which is that many faithful Mormons think the Book of Mormon does make that claim -- and I agree with them.

Can you provide a source for the claim that many faithful Mormons believe the Book of Mormon does make the claim that "the American continents were populated as the result of three separate migrations of people from the Middle East"?

I've been in lots of discussions with lots of Latter-day Saints around the world and that particular belief has not come up with many of them. At best the Book of Mormon records three migrations of people from the Middle East or Asia but does not preclude the possibility of existing populations".

Even then the opinion of many Mormons plus yours does not make Mormon doctrine.

(and yes you can consider this a CFR)

Edited March 13, 2012 by KevinG

[thesometimesaint]

Zerinus:

The Americas are two continents. America is country.

The BoM makes no reference to America. The Americas didn't exist as such until it was named after Amerigo Vespucci a thousand years later. The land of course existed but it wasn't called America. Further there is no indication from the BoM that they had any idea as to how big the Americas are.

[Nevo]

Can you provide a source for the claim that many faithful Mormons believe the Book of Mormon does make the claim that "the American continents were populated as the result of three separate migrations of people from the Middle East"?

(and yes you can consider this a CFR)

This is a silly CFR. This is easily the majority view of faithful Mormons outside of Internet discussion boards. I've only encountered a handful of Mormons IRL who've even heard of FARMS/Maxwell Institute, and I'm not personally aware of any who espouse the Limited Geography Theory.

[Rob Bowman]

KevinG,

You wrote:

Can you provide a source for the claim that many faithful Mormons believe the Book of Mormon does make the claim that "the American continents were populated as the result of three separate migrations of people from the Middle East"?

I've been in lots of discussions with lots of Latter-day Saints around the world and that particular belief has not come up with many of them. At best the Book of Mormon records three migrations of people from the Middle East or Asia but does not preclude the possibility of existing populations".

Even then the opinion of many Mormons plus yours does not make Mormon doctrine.

(and yes you can consider this a CFR)

Okay, but you should already know this. Here are two examples that should be sufficient to document that what i said accurately represents a popular, traditional LDS view.

"The book which I hold in my hand (the Book of Mormon) contains nearly as much information as the Old Testament. It is a book of five or six hundred closely printed pages. This book, the Latter-day Saints believe to be the Bible of the western hemisphere; a compilation of sacred books, books delivered by divine inspiration in ancient times to prophets, revelators and inspired men who dwelt upon this continent, both in North and South America." Orson Pratt, JD 14:326. (Continue reading for several pages and you'll find that Pratt elaborates on this claim in some detail.)

"Who are the Lamanites? The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people. There are no blessings, of all the imaginable ones, to which you are not entitled -- you, the Lamanites -- when you are righteous. You are of royal blood, the children of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Lehi. Lamanites share a royal heritage. I should like to address my remarks to you, our kinsmen of the isles of the sea and the Americas. Millions of you have blood relatively unmixed with gentile nations. Columbus called you "Indians," thinking he had reached the East Indies. Millions of you are descendants of Spaniards and Indians, and are termed mestizos, and are called after your countries, for instance: Mexicans in Mexico; Guatemalans in Guatemala; Chilianos in Chile. You Polynesians of the Pacific are called Samoan or Maori, Tahitian or Hawaiian, according to your islands. There are probably sixty million of you on the two continents and on the Pacific Islands, all related by blood ties. The Lord calls you Lamanites, a name which has a pleasant ring, for many of the grandest people ever to live upon the earth were so called." The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 596-97.

[cinepro]

In his critique of chapter 44 of the Gospel Doctrines manual, we find the following statement:

"According to the Book of Mormon, the American continents were populated as the result of three separate migrations of people from the Middle East."

The Book of Mormon does not make this claim.

Bernard

My rule of thumb for anti-mormon sites is that if Joseph Smith got it wrong, and they are just saying what Joseph Smith said (and was subsequently reprinted in the Ensign), then I cut them some slack.

I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country [America] and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was [also] made known unto me; I was also told where were deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgment of the records of the ancient prophets that had existed on this continent.

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

In this important and interesting book [The Book of Mormon] the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.

.

[zerinus]

Zerinus:

The Americas are two continents. America is country.

The BoM makes no reference to America. The Americas didn't exist as such until it was named after Amerigo Vespucci a thousand years later. The land of course existed but it wasn't called America.

What the Book of Mormon calls the "land of promise" is the same as what we today call North and South America.

Further there is no indication from the BoM that they had any idea as to how big the Americas are.

There is. Nephi was shown a vision in which he saw all of the Promised Land, saw his descendent become a great and populous nation, saw the destruction of his people by the Lamanites, saw the discovery of America by Columbus, saw the colonization of the Promised Land by the Gentiles, and the defeat of the aborigines by them, saw the establishment of the United States, saw the War of Independence, saw the coming forth of the latter-day Restoration etc. Moroni saw the same thing. Many of their prophets were aware of the same things, and referred to all of North and South America as the "land of promise". Heck, even Joseph Smith called all of North and South America "Zion" (Teachings, 362). Did you bother to read the references I had given from the Book of Mormon by any chance?

Edited March 13, 2012 by zerinus

[KevinG]

I know what our past prphets and apostles have speculated about the Book of Mormon. They have nothing to say about the origins of the people being purely from three Middle Eastern migrations.

What is wrong with correcting your statement to include "The Book of Mormon records three migrations of people from the Middle East or Asia but does not preclude the possibility of existing populations that mixed with the people in the Book of Mormon record." (I'll let the scholars debate if this is accurate)

The bottom line - why do you persist in telling the LDS what the LDS believe while picking and choosing which side of the story you want to tell? (Not boiler plate if its true).

Edited March 13, 2012 by KevinG

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You wrote:

I know what our past prphets and apostles have speculated about the Book of Mormon. They have nothing to say about the origins of the people being purely from three Middle Eastern migrations.

I didn't use the word "purely." Nor did I claim that those prophets denied the possibility of any other sources of the pre-Columbian inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere. You are holding me to a higher standard of precision than you hold your own prophets and apostles.

[KevinG]

Kevin,

You wrote:

I didn't use the word "purely." Nor did I claim that those prophets denied the possibility of any other sources of the pre-Columbian inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere. You are holding me to a higher standard of precision than you hold your own prophets and apostles.

Your job is that of scholar not congregation or church leader. Even so - it is a good thing we review our past teachings and sort out where we may have been wrong - don't you think? That does not take away from the great work President Kimball did as a Prophet or his understanding of the important saving doctrines of Christ.

At the very least you might want to clarify that there was a possibility of more immigrations or an existing population according to current understanding in LDS circles. You are judging the church by past non-doctrinal writings. Don't perpetuate errors or folk beliefs and call it scholarship.

[cinepro]

The bottom line - why do you persist in telling the LDS what the LDS believe while picking and choosing which side of the story you want to tell? (Not boiler plate if its true).

I don't know any LDS who would look to IRR as a resource for "what the LDS believe", but I do know lots that would look to Church publications such as those found on the Church website.

I also don't know that on this particular subject IRR is publishing only "one side of the story" when it comes to what the Church has taught in its official publications. Since apologists aren't "the Church", how can they be the "other side of the story"?

Or to put it another way, I have provided a quote from Joseph Smith, as found on the Church's website, that seems to support IRR's summary. Can you provide any quotes from the Church's website that contradict this (i.e. present the "other side")? If not, I don't know how you can accuse him of anything other than simply presenting what the Church has published on the subject.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You wrote:

Your job is that of scholar not congregation or church leader. Even so - it is a good thing we review our past teachings and sort out where we may have been wrong - don't you think? That does not take away from the great work President Kimball did as a Prophet or his understanding of the important saving doctrines of Christ.

So let's see some transparency and candor from your prophets. Let's see an article in Ensign explaining that Joseph Smith and most of the other LDS Church leaders in the past were mistaken about this issue. Let's see Monson present a clear message that frankly acknowledges that the older, traditional understanding of the Book of Mormon was wrong and cannot be reconciled with the facts.

You wrote:

At the very least you might want to clarify that there was a possibility of more immigrations or an existing population according to current understanding in LDS circles.

You're not paying attention. I did so in the very article in question.

[BCSpace]

and excludes any others (2 Nephi 1:8.).

I disagree. It does not preclude nations that might already be there.

[KevinG]

I don't know any LDS who would look to IRR as a resource for "what the LDS believe", but I do know lots that would look to Church publications such as those found on the Church website.

I'm more concerned about those investigators who find Rob's musings and assume they are the last word on Mormonism when they are indeed a very smooth packaged version of telling people "what they really believe".

[KevinG]

I disagree. It does not preclude nations that might already be there.

Exactly - that is what I wish Rob would clarify in his statement. Instead he has chosen to use ad hominem attacks to defend the indefensible.