Digging Into The Book Of Mormon

[Bob Crockett]

After reading this thread and seeing the fundamental and dogmatic view of Bob and his selective memory when coming to his conclusions, I am beginning to seriously doubt what I've learned from him about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. If he has been so liberal with this information, what else has he twisted? I thought his MMM was excellent work, but am now calling it into question. Personally, I don't care where Cumorah is and would be perfectly fine if it was in Mesoamerica, New York, or Alaska. But the way information is used and followed with the accusation of apostasy to those who disagree with him (that actually sounds quite familiar) is disturbing to me.

Well, I don't really see my use of the various statements of the Brethren as twisting anything.

How do you feel about members of the Church who question Ancient America Speaks? Do you think they are uninformed or something worse? Or do you think that their views are at least worth listening to?

If I accused you or anybody else here with apostasy you have my apologies. I cite to Pres. Smith for his views and don't attribute those views to anybody here. It's like pointing to the writings of Paul to say that prevaricators have no place in the Kingdom of Heaven but I don't apply that anathema to any poster here.

I think this is a very legitimate topic of discussion amongst the Saints. I would have serious questions about teaching about a MesoAmerican theory in Sunday School but wouldn't think twice about hearing Pres. Ivins quoted to me. All too often we rely on the arm of the flesh.

[Calm]

Actually, I have traced the authorities to show that is not the case.

But my greater point was to call into question any Book of Mormon geography and ask how it is Ancient America speaks doesn't constitute the very thing criticized?

Wasn't this one of the Church's videos that was used extensively in missionary work and such back in the 70s and 80s or am I confusing it with another one?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0423820/

[ERayR]

What further clouds the issue is the fact that the Mesoamerican hobbyists have gained lots of traction in church-sponsored media and literature, as can be witnessed by the tons of real estate committed to the hobby by FARMS publications, church videos and on rare occasion, the Ensign.

That's what the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints said about the saints who went to Utah too.

[ERayR]

I was merely referencing Vogel's claims and what I recalled about it. That was his claim. You may disagree with him. I often or usually do.

And, even if my recollection of what Vogel said was faulty, or if his conclusion was faulty, we can see for ourselves what Elder Lee said. Even as phrased above, the quote is clear to an objective reader. When Elder Lee heard that people were trying to move Cumorah south of the Rio Grande, he used it as an occasion to condemn speculative geography.

I could speculate and say that the harsh things said about writers, like my BYU Professor friend, who advocated a Great Lakes theory, may have led to FARMS Review's downfall. I think my speculation could have more solid foundation than the speculation in Ancient America Speaks.

And you are the only objective one here? Please don't patronize the rest of us.

[ERayR]

And what do you make of the Brethren's repeated drumbeat that we should not engage in speculative Book of Mormon geography? Do you think Ancient America Speaks runs afoul of that counsel?

I think it is not nearly so loud as you make it out, especially in the more recent statements that you seem to be reading more into them than is there.

No.

[ERayR]

After reading this thread and seeing the fundamental and dogmatic view of Bob and his selective memory when coming to his conclusions, I am beginning to seriously doubt what I've learned from him about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. If he has been so liberal with this information, what else has he twisted? I thought his MMM was excellent work, but am now calling it into question. Personally, I don't care where Cumorah is and would be perfectly fine if it was in Mesoamerica, New York, or Alaska. But the way information is used and followed with the accusation of apostasy to those who disagree with him (that actually sounds quite familiar) is disturbing to me.

I think this is a wise idea.

[cursor]

My views on this subject been met with a lot of hostility here. But my view is only one of consistent orthodoxy, consistency with the Brethren.

I've been told my rhetoric is unreasonably harsh. What I like to do is quote from Pres. Smith, who says that those who engage in the two-Cumorah speculation are disturbed in the faith.

It appears to me that your expressed rhetorical perspective has been unreasonably connected with a very select subset of brethren. What might the others (who enjoy equal standing) have to say? How might the collective perspective moderate your focused rhetoric?

Edited July 22, 2012 by cursor

[webbles]

Actually, I have traced the authorities to show that is not the case.

No. According to Harold B Lee, any teacher in a CES setting that teaches any location for the Hill Cumorah (be it New York or Mesoamerica) is teaching their own opinion and should not do it. He states that the Lord has not given us the location of the Hill Cumorah.

[Calm]

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1974/10/mormon-media?lang=eng

is available through BYU Educational Media Service and the Deseret Book Company.

Ancient America Speaks Film: Long version, 28 min., short version, 15 min.; color.

Ancient America Speaks is an archaeological tour through Central and South America highlighting a time period coincident with that recorded in the Book of Mormon. Filmed at various locations of interest and hosted by Paul Cheesman, associate professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University, the tour shows evidences of highly developed civilizations.

An inspection of major discoveries and artifacts reveals that, “In addition to being outstanding metalsmiths, artisans, and builders, these ancient inhabitants were gifted in the art of medicine to an astonishing degree. They were familiar with the use of narcotics, treated abnormal pregnancies, and even performed successful skull operations.”

The film follows the discoveries of contemporary man and then points out that much of what scholars have revealed about these people was recorded centuries ago on metal plates that were translated into the Book of Mormon. It also demonstrates that the people of these past civilizations “… showed a great interest in religion. According to many interesting discoveries that have been made, religion was the center of their lives. There is much evidence of a highly organized priesthood in their religious practices. These early Americans understood the story of the creation of the world, the great flood, the closed ark, the building of the high tower and the confusion of the languages, much the same as they are found in the Old Testament.”

The film closes with a testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, a testimony based on knowledge derived from the Spirit.

Produced by BYU’s Department of Motion Picture Production, Ancient America Speaks

[ANACO]

Scans of the original Ensign articles (about 6MB each)

Digging into the Book of Mormon, John L. Sorenson

Part 1 of 2

– 1985 September

Part 2 of 2

– 1985 October

Cursor, I remember when these articles came out in the Ensign.

But it clearly states as written by your father:

"The purpose of this article and the one to follow is to sketch a few vivid examples of changes of how some Latter-Day Saint scholars view the Book of Mormon in light of new theories and discoveries of the past.

These articles are not intended to be an expression of official Church teachings, but on the basis of my own research and study

, I have thought this new information to be worth consideration."

[bold for emphasis]

It is not Church doctrine-it is not official Church teaching - your father admits this.

On the second page in the second article, your father quotes Michael R. Coe in an attempt to prove the Maya glyphs contained historical records, more than what they were earlier considered to contain - in an attempt to link Maya glyphs with the characters on the Anthon transcript. (These latter characters look nothing like Maya glyphs, btw.)

Yet, it's well known Michael R. Coe disagrees with your father's conclusions about the people of Mesoamerica being the Nephites (or Lamanites or Mulekites).

Even F.A.R.M.S. disagreed: "it is important to emphasize that the Nephites were not the Maya"

http://maxwellinstit...d=66&chapid=738

Why would LDS Scholars go around discussing the Maya, while at the same time claim the Maya and the Nephites were never the same? Then promote this theory as church doctrine - in firesides, lectures, radio, PBS interviews, F.A.R.M.S. Reviews critical of different theories by other authors - while also claiming it is not official teaching of the Church?

In fact your Father's personal opinion, which he clearly states is not official church teaching, claims that Joseph Smith's personal opinion was wrong - (and by inference, that Smith's opinion was personal but not revelatory):

"Yet later statements by Joseph and his early associates reveal that he supposed that the entire Western Hemisphere had been occupied by Nephites and Lamanites. In other words, his personal interpretation of the book's geography differed in some respects from what the record itself stipulates." http://maxwellinstit...kid=8&chapid=65

That's scary. To promote a theory admitted as not official church teaching as a basis to claim the Prophet Joseph Smith was misinterpreting something, is ... sort of out there.

With kind regards.

Edited July 22, 2012 by ANACO

[cursor]

My father was invited by a committee which included GAs (a whopping 37 years ago) and was given explicit permission to speculate, to examine, and to propose logical Book of Mormon geographical scenarios ... based on a combination of intellect, professional research, and substantial spiritual introspection. I read that (alone) as authoritative permission to dig, to inquire, and to compare.

[ERayR]

My father was invited by a committee which included GAs (a whopping 37 years ago) and was given explicit permission to speculate, to examine, and to propose logical Book of Mormon geographical scenarios ... based on a combination of intellect, professional research, and substantial spiritual introspection. I read that (alone) as authoritative permission to dig, to inquire, and to compare.

Thanks for the information. It certainly appears that 37 years ago all the GA's were not convinced that the matter was settled.

[ANACO]

My father was invited by a committee which included GAs (a whopping 37 years ago) and was given explicit permission to speculate, to examine, and to propose logical Book of Mormon geographical scenarios ... based on a combination of intellect, professional research, and substantial spiritual introspection. I read that (alone) as authoritative permission to dig, to inquire, and to compare.

But it's not official Church teachings. It says so in the article.

Do you think it is - just because he was invited to do as you say, by a committee which included GAs?

[ERayR]

But it's not official Church teachings. It says so in the article.

Do you think it is - just because he was invited to do as you say, by a committee which included GAs?

I do not remember anybody saying it was official church doctrine. The point all along has been that there is no official church doctrine.

[ANACO]

I do not remember anybody saying it was official church doctrine. The point all along has been that there is no official church doctrine.

Except for a hill and/or land in New York called Cumorah (D&C 128) - as the theory of another hill and land called by the same name alleged to be in Mesoamerica - is not official church doctrine.

[ERayR]

Except for a hill and/or land in New York called Cumorah (D&C 128) - as the theory of another hill and land called by the same name alleged to be in Mesoamerica - is not official church doctrine.

I am afraid D&C 128 doesn't say anything about hill Cumorah in New York. What point are you trying to make with above post?

[Bob Crockett]

It appears to me that your expressed rhetorical perspective has been unreasonably connected with a very select subset of brethren. What might the others (who enjoy equal standing) have to say? How might the collective perspective moderate your focused rhetoric?

Of course. But I haven't seen anything like that.

I believe in the equal dignities doctrine. If it is stated in General Conference by a member of the First Presidency, or in church publications (Articles of Faith, Doctrines of Salvation) I'd like to see any countervailing statements made in a similar vein. No private statements, as I believe the Brethren like the rest of us have their own private interpretations. Thus I take into account your father's private recollections of an invitation from various general authorities, I process it, but without names, dates and without a public venue for such claims, I have to say it isn't a very strong foundation for support.

And you are the only objective one here? Please don't patronize the rest of us.

Please forgive me if I come across that way. I realize that objectivity is very hard in discussions about religion, particular if one digs in and can't get out no matter what the evidence. Religion isn't a very objective thing in the first place, and trying to understand geography in the Book of Mormon is even more risky from an objective point of view.

I also seriously question the use of acrimony between members of the church who wish to discuss the more "out there" topics in the Book of Mormon, like geography. It isn't right, and I certainly hold myself responsible for it by citing to President Smith's view that members who hold the a two-Cumorah theory are disturbed in the faith. But, I feel compelled to rely upon President Smith's language to try and emphasize the previous depth of feeling the Brethren have had on this subject.

So, I'm hoping that one or more of you MesoAmerican advocates can feel good about answering my questions. How do you feel about members of the Church who criticize Dr. Sorenson's book? Is there something wrong with their beliefs? Would you question their commitment to the Book of Mormon?

Edited July 23, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[ANACO]

I am afraid D&C 128 doesn't say anything about hill Cumorah in New York. What point are you trying to make with above post?

I don't share your fears.

Kind regards.

[webbles]

I believe in the equal dignities doctrine. If it is stated in General Conference by a member of the First Presidency, or in church publications (Articles of Faith, Doctrines of Salvation) I'd like to see any countervailing statements made in a similar vein. No private statements, as I believe the Brethren like the rest of us have their own private interpretations. Thus I take into account your father's private recollections of an invitation from various general authorities, I process it, but without names, dates and without a public venue for such claims, I have to say it isn't a very strong foundation for support.

Sorry to bring it up again, but you keep ignoring Harold B. Lee's statement. It was in a church publication ("Charge to Religious Educators, Second Edition") and it states that we do not have the longitude and latitude of the Hill Cumorah.

How do you feel about members of the Church who criticize Dr. Sorenson's book?

They are entitled to it.

Is there something wrong with their beliefs?

No. I'd just like to know why they think that way and if it makes sense to me.

Would you question their commitment to the Book of Mormon?

Why should I?

[ERayR]

Of course. But I haven't seen anything like that.

I believe in the equal dignities doctrine. If it is stated in General Conference by a member of the First Presidency, or in church publications (Articles of Faith, Doctrines of Salvation) I'd like to see any countervailing statements made in a similar vein. No private statements, as I believe the Brethren like the rest of us have their own private interpretations. Thus I take into account your father's private recollections of an invitation from various general authorities, I process it, but without names, dates and without a public venue for such claims, I have to say it isn't a very strong foundation for support.

Please forgive me if I come across that way. I realize that objectivity is very hard in discussions about religion, particular if one digs in and can't get out no matter what the evidence. Religion isn't a very objective thing in the first place, and trying to understand geography in the Book of Mormon is even more risky from an objective point of view.

I also seriously question the use of acrimony between members of the church who wish to discuss the more "out there" topics in the Book of Mormon, like geography. It isn't right, and I certainly hold myself responsible for it by citing to President Smith's view that members who hold the a two-Cumorah theory are disturbed in the faith. But, I feel compelled to rely upon President Smith's language to try and emphasize the previous depth of feeling the Brethren have had on this subject.

So, I'm hoping that one or more of you MesoAmerican advocates can feel good about answering my questions. How do you feel about members of the Church who criticize Dr. Sorenson's book? Is there something wrong with their beliefs? Would you question their commitment to the Book of Mormon?

I think you are mistaken that Doctrines of Salvation is a church publication. It was Bruce R. McConkie who wrote it.

It was published by Bookcraft.

Edited July 23, 2012 by ERayR

[Calm]

How do you feel about members of the Church who criticize Dr. Sorenson's book? Is there something wrong with their beliefs? Would you question their commitment to the Book of Mormon?

As long as they do it with respect, why would there be a problem?

[Bob Crockett]

I think you are mistaken that Doctrines of Salvation is a church publication. It was Bruce R. McConkie who wrote it.

It was published by Bookcraft.

Used as a priesthood manual.

[Bob Crockett]

As long as they do it with respect, why would there be a problem?

I urge you not to attribute vicious motivations to my particular beliefs on this topic. I certainly don't to you or anybody else.

[ERayR]

Used as a priesthood manual.

I do not remember that 3 volume set by McConkie as a priesthood manual. It was published by Bookcraft. Would you kindly show me?

Edited July 23, 2012 by ERayR

[blackstrap]

Again,if Pres.Lee said we don't know the latitude or longitude of the hill,and yet we certainly know that of the hill near Palmyra, what does that infer about the real position of Cumorah?

Edited July 23, 2012 by blackstrap