Latest "Pure Mormonism" Blog: North Vs. Central American Bofm Model

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The latest offering from Bro. Waterman...

http://puremormonism...-of-mormon.html

I know there are some folks here who will be anxious to opine on this blog.

Thoughts?

Edited December 31, 2012 by BookofMormonLuvr

[thesometimesaint]

The latest offering from Bro. Waterman...

http://puremormonism...-of-mormon.html

I know there are some folks here who will be anxious to opine on this blog.

Thoughts?

I believe a better case can be made for Central America.

[rockpond]

I think it's fascinating stuff to consider. I definitely lean toward a limited geography model for the Book of Mormon and the North American model (in Waterman's blog post) could fit into that.

But my testimony of the text, of its divine nature and spiritual relevance in my life, is separate from the historicity. And I think it's important that we avoid pushing historical models and evidences so intently that we lead people away from believing in it as a testimony of Christ.

p.s. The post you linked to is not Brother Waterman's "latest offering", it is actually from November 2011. I'm not saying that to change the topic, just to point out that he does have quite a few more recent posts.

Edited December 31, 2012 by rockpond

[Freedom]

By the way, you would think that after providing answers to the most persistently perplexing questions on Book of Mormon geography, those scholars who have spent their careers performing mental acrobatics trying to force that awkward Central American theory to fit into what we read in the Book of Mormon itself would be standing in line to thank Meldrum and his fellow researchers for their thorough and exhausting labors in bringing this research to light. You would think that, wouldn't you?

You are so naive.

Hmmm

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I think it's fascinating stuff to consider. I definitely lean toward a limited geography model for the Book of Mormon and the North American model (in Waterman's blog post) could fit into that.

But my testimony of the text, of its divine nature and spiritual relevance in my life, is separate from the historicity. And I think it's important that we avoid pushing historical models and evidences so intently that we lead people away from believing in it as a testimony of Christ.

p.s. The post you linked to is not Brother Waterman's "latest offering", it is actually from November 2011. I'm not saying that to change the topic, just to point out that he does have quite a few more recent posts.

Thanks for the clarification. He posted it on his FB wall, so I assumed it was his most recent.

[canard78]

I think it's fair to say that for most of his life, Joseph Smith considered North America to be the setting for the Book of Mormon.

There are lots of quotes from Joseph Smith which shows he believed this. I find it odd that we believe him when he pinpoints the very altar where Adam gave his first sacrifice, but think he couldn't have known the location for the book he translated.

Adam's Altar:

t was stated by the Prophet Joseph Smith, in our hearing while standing on an elevated piece of ground or plateau near Adam-ondi-Ahman (Davis Co., Missouri,), where there were a number of rocks piled together, that the valley before us was the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman; or in other words, the valley where God talked with Adam, and where he gathered his righteous posterity, as recorded in the above revelation, and that this pile of stones was an altar built by him when he offered up sacrifices, as we understand, on that occasion.^[4]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Garden_of_Eden_in_Missouri

And Illinois as the Book of Mormon setting. (This page has a list of quotes, with some also pointing towards Central America... a location I prefer as the setting. But the certainty that Joseph made the later statements is ambiguous - I think there is plenty to suggest he considered North America to be the setting, especially in the years immediately after publication):

The following is taken from a letter written by Joseph Smith to his wife Emma during the trek known as "Zion's Camp". The whole of our journey, in the midst of so large a company of social honest and sincere men, wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity, and gazing upon a country the fertility, the splendour and the goodness so indescribable, all serves to pass away time unnoticed.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Statements/Nineteenth_century/Joseph_Smith's_lifetime_1829-1840/Joseph_Smith

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

[Brant Gardner]

Thoughts?

It rehashes Meldrum's points without adding or improving upon them. It does not deal with any of the issues that have been raised about that model.

[Brant Gardner]

I think it's fair to say that for most of his life, Joseph Smith considered North America to be the setting for the Book of Mormon.

There are lots of quotes from Joseph Smith which shows he believed this. I find it odd that we believe him when he pinpoints the very altar where Adam gave his first sacrifice, but think he couldn't have known the location for the book he translated.

Joseph did not limit the location of the Book of Mormon. He was very willing to see major events occur in Mesoamerica. I doubt that he excluded North America. He really didn't know. Prior to the printing of Incidents of Travel in Yucatan he never mentioned anything about Mesoamerica and I doubt he knew anything. After that, he and close associates were extolling the virtues of Mesoamerica.

I know that every camp wants to claim Joseph as their exclusive proponent, but the historical data don't allow it. He was pretty catholic about it.

As for why he might not have known the location, that is really much easier to explain. Harder to explain would be how it. We can assume, but how might it have happened? The Book of Mormon text doesn't clearly say where it took place. He was given visions, but if I see a picture of a location on my television and miss any statement of where that was, how will I know it?

Appealing to Joseph as the arbiter of location is dependent entirely upon the faith-assertion that as a prophet he must have known these things. That, of course, is contrary to the things that Joseph tried to explain about his position. It wasn't anything he claimed for himself, but an opinion thrust upon him that he tried to shake (remember the story of the unstrung bow).

[Darren10]

I believe a better case can be made for Central America.

I totally agree.

[Monster]

I think a better case can be made for it not being a literal history at all. Maybe some kind of figurative teaching but not actual history.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think a better case can be made for it not being a literal history at all. Maybe some kind of figurative teaching but not actual history.

Would you consider the possibility that it is historical fiction? As for the Iliad. Or wholly fictional in the sense that we understand Tolkien's Hobbit?

[Darren10]

Or wholly fictional in the sense that we understand Tolkien's Hobbit?

WHAT??? Say it ain't so!!!

[canard78]

Joseph did not limit the location of the Book of Mormon. He was very willing to see major events occur in Mesoamerica. I doubt that he excluded North America. He really didn't know. Prior to the printing of Incidents of Travel in Yucatan he never mentioned anything about Mesoamerica and I doubt he knew anything. After that, he and close associates were extolling the virtues of Mesoamerica.

I know that every camp wants to claim Joseph as their exclusive proponent, but the historical data don't allow it. He was pretty catholic about it.

As for why he might not have known the location, that is really much easier to explain. Harder to explain would be how it. We can assume, but how might it have happened? The Book of Mormon text doesn't clearly say where it took place. He was given visions, but if I see a picture of a location on my television and miss any statement of where that was, how will I know it?

Appealing to Joseph as the arbiter of location is dependent entirely upon the faith-assertion that as a prophet he must have known these things. That, of course, is contrary to the things that Joseph tried to explain about his position. It wasn't anything he claimed for himself, but an opinion thrust upon him that he tried to shake (remember the story of the unstrung bow).

You make a fair point that there's apparent uncertainty about location. Joseph seems to have promoted the idea that the "...hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood" JSH 1:51. In an "epistle from Joseph Smith," he said "(128:20) And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed."

Would it have been Elder McConkie who cross-referenced the word Cumorah in v20 above to v51 in JSH? Would limited geography proponents consider that a misreference?

I'm not trying to build a case for North American setting. I'm interested to know why the prophet is considered to be only speculating about Nephite plains etc. Why is Zelph/Adam's Altar identified specifically?

[blackstrap]

From all of JS writings, is there any indication at all that he made a specific query of the Lord to know the location of the happenings in the BoM? Is there any indication that he was told by the Lord to NOT ask? I know that I would be most curious myself about such info.

[livy111us]

From all of JS writings, is there any indication at all that he made a specific query of the Lord to know the location of the happenings in the BoM? Is there any indication that he was told by the Lord to NOT ask? I know that I would be most curious myself about such info.

Nope, not one. He speculated on Book of Mormon geography since it's inception but never received revelation on the matter, despite what Meldrum likes to claim. There are a few problems with Meldrum claiming this.

1. The Church has officially said that there the Lord has not revealed BOM geography, yet Meldrum claims it has. Quoting a friend, "who are you going to follow? The Church or Meldrum?"

2. If it was revealed by revelation, and it was revealed that it happened in a small portion of what is now the US, then why did Joseph Smith change his views after this so-called revelation and place The Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica?

3. If there is revelation on BOM geography, then the Church is knowingly denying that revelation and would be disdaining the Prophet as Meldrum likes to put it.

4. When the Church has published pro-Mesoamerican setting for The Book of Mormon articles, pictures, conference talks, Temple dedicatory prayers, etc... are they in apostasy because they taught a Mesoamerican theory? (Meldrum likes to call members who accept a Mesoamerican setting theory apostates and such statements)

[livy111us]

Here are some great articles on Joseph Smiths beliefs on BOM geography

http://en.fairmormon...etime_1829-1840

http://en.fairmormon...eteenth_century

http://www.drlund.co...dendum-four.pdf

http://www.drlund.co...dendum-nine.pdf

http://www.bmaf.org/node/381

http://www.bmaf.org/node/444

and a short video with a few statements from Joseph Smith

Edited January 1, 2013 by livy111us

[canard78]

Here are some great articles on Joseph Smiths beliefs on BOM geography

http://en.fairmormon...etime_1829-1840

http://en.fairmormon...eteenth_century

http://www.drlund.co...dendum-four.pdf

http://www.drlund.co...dendum-nine.pdf

http://www.bmaf.org/node/381

http://www.bmaf.org/node/444

and a short video with a few statements from Joseph Smith

Maybe Joseph felt no need to seek revelation given he seemed quite certain that he was living there. Of course the limited geography advocates will want to brush this quote off, but Joseph clearly believed the Nephites spent at least some time in Illinois:

"The whole of our journey, in the midst of so large a company of social honest and sincere men, wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity, and gazing upon a country the fertility, the splendour and the goodness so indescribable, all serves to pass away time unnoticed."

Can their be any doubt that in 1834, Joseph believed he was walking where Nephites walked? This is not some obscure reference to descendents of Lamanites, but the actual "beloved Nephites."

Why would he need to seek revelation if he already felt confident that he knew?

In which case, do those who now seek to restrict the entire Book of Mormon history to a limited geography in a small pocket of Central America have to ignore or discredit the words of the prophet?

Is it fair to say that the more science and archaeology discredit a hemespheric model, the more apologists today have to distance themselves from the evidence the prophet and other church leaders ever believed such a notion?

Edited January 1, 2013 by canard78

[thesometimesaint]

canard78:

Please show me where in the D&C where the Church accepts any location for the main events in the BoM.

The BoM itself does not indicate a hemispheric model.

[canard78]

canard78:

Please show me where in the D&C where the Church accepts any location for the main events in the BoM.

The BoM itself does not indicate a hemispheric model.

I agree that the BoM doesn't internally, especially if you estimate distances travelled.

I also agree that there's no canon on the main events. The closest I've found is D&C 128:20 which says 'glad tidings from Cumorah...' and cross-references JSH 1:56. The BoM's introduction says it is about the inhabitants of the Americas and that the plates were hid in the hill Cumorah. Are intros and cross-references part of the canon? Given the church, in 2006, quietly changed the 1981 Book of Mormon introduction from "principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors" perhaps it isn't. If the the 1981 intro was added without common consent I suppose it can be changed without the same.

Given Cumorah is defined by the intro and D&C ad being in upstate New York, is Mormon 6 & 8 (the only other canon to use the name) also located there? We would presume not, given digs advocate otherwise.

Out of interest, what do you make of Joseph's 1834 'plains of the Nephites' statement?

[Robert F. Smith]

You make a fair point that there's apparent uncertainty about location. Joseph seems to have promoted the idea that the "...hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood" JSH 1:51. In an "epistle from Joseph Smith," he said "(128:20) And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed."

Would it have been Elder McConkie who cross-referenced the word Cumorah in v20 above to v51 in JSH? Would limited geography proponents consider that a misreference?

I'm not trying to build a case for North American setting. I'm interested to know why the prophet is considered to be only speculating about Nephite plains etc. Why is Zelph/Adam's Altar identified specifically?

The reference in D&C 128:20 is from 1842. If Joseph knew that the hill convenient to Manchester was actually the hill Cumorah, why didn't he say so early on? Just because Joseph translated the Book of Mormon via sacred rather than scholarly means, does not suggest that he knew anything about Book of Mormon geography. Nowhere does God declare that he taught Joseph Book of Mormon geography, leaving him able to speculate about the matter along with the rest of us.

[thesometimesaint]

I agree that the BoM doesn't internally, especially if you estimate distances travelled.

I also agree that there's no canon on the main events. The closest I've found is D&C 128:20 which says 'glad tidings from Cumorah...' and cross-references JSH 1:56. The BoM's introduction says it is about the inhabitants of the Americas and that the plates were hid in the hill Cumorah. Are intros and cross-references part of the canon? Given the church, in 2006, quietly changed the 1981 Book of Mormon introduction from "principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors" perhaps it isn't. If the the 1981 intro was added without common consent I suppose it can be changed without the same.

Given Cumorah is defined by the intro and D&C ad being in upstate New York, is Mormon 6 & 8 (the only other canon to use the name) also located there? We would presume not, given digs advocate otherwise.

Out of interest, what do you make of Joseph's 1834 'plains of the Nephites' statement?

I heard the hemispheric model idea when I first became interested in the Church. It never made sense to me. If we go just by estimated distances the whole Hemispheric Model falls apart. North America is just too big for it to be even logical. Armies can't do it today without aircraft let alone two thousand years ago.

Place names aren't much help, especially names given at later dates. If I were to say "Greetings from Rome" would I be talking about Rome; New York; Rome, Georgia; or Rome Italy? Though they are thousands of miles and/or thousands of years apart. Without more information it would be impossible to tell.

Moreover I'm not convinced that JS knew where the Lehites lived. His ideas seem to be rather fluid, and the Church doesn't accept any particular place other than somewhere in the New World. To me the internal evidences indicate Central America, but if the Prophet today were to reveal that it was the area around the finger lakes region of Upstate New York I'd go with that. But that does lead to more questions to be asked.

The previous introduction wasn't in the BoM until relatively recently. IIRC it was added by Bruce R. McConkie and never agreed to by the Church. Though I have no real objection depending on how "principle" is defined. If used in a religious sense then the issue largely disappears. So while I could be genetically related to Abraham( I also possibly could not be). Religiously I am connected.

I don't know what if anything to make of it. Again I'm not convinced that JS knew where the Lehites lived, and the BoM itself doesn't say. If the Lord tells me, in this life, I'll go with that. If I die before that happens it is but one of the many questions I have to ask him about.

[canard78]

I heard the hemispheric model idea when I first became interested in the Church. It never made sense to me. If we go just by estimated distances the whole Hemispheric Model falls apart. North America is just too big for it to be even logical. Armies can't do it today without aircraft let alone two thousand years ago.

Place names aren't much help, especially names given at later dates. If I were to say "Greetings from Rome" would I be talking about Rome; New York; Rome, Georgia; or Rome Italy? Though they are thousands of miles and/or thousands of years apart. Without more information it would be impossible to tell.

Moreover I'm not convinced that JS knew where the Lehites lived. His ideas seem to be rather fluid, and the Church doesn't accept any particular place other than somewhere in the New World. To me the internal evidences indicate Central America, but if the Prophet today were to reveal that it was the area around the finger lakes region of Upstate New York I'd go with that. But that does lead to more questions to be asked.

The previous introduction wasn't in the BoM until relatively recently. IIRC it was added by Bruce R. McConkie and never agreed to by the Church. Though I have no real objection depending on how "principle" is defined. If used in a religious sense then the issue largely disappears. So while I could be genetically related to Abraham( I also possibly could not be). Religiously I am connected.

I don't know what if anything to make of it. Again I'm not convinced that JS knew where the Lehites lived, and the BoM itself doesn't say. If the Lord tells me, in this life, I'll go with that. If I die before that happens it is but one of the many questions I have to ask him about.

And what of his "plains of the Nephites" statement? That seems in no way speculative. If he can point at a pile of rocks and say "this is Adam's altar," why can't he say "these are the plains where the Nephites walked?"

[canard78]

The reference in D&C 128:20 is from 1842. If Joseph knew that the hill convenient to Manchester was actually the hill Cumorah, why didn't he say so early on? Just because Joseph translated the Book of Mormon via sacred rather than scholarly means, does not suggest that he knew anything about Book of Mormon geography. Nowhere does God declare that he taught Joseph Book of Mormon geography, leaving him able to speculate about the matter along with the rest of us.

Same question as that posed to sometimesaint:

"And what of his "plains of the Nephites" statement? That seems in no way speculative. If he can point at a pile of rocks and say "this is Adam's altar," why can't he say "these are the plains where the Nephites walked?"

Out of interest, what reason, if any, do church leaders give for avoiding a BoM geography? We had this conversation on the 'witnesses' thread. All other canon can be placed firmly on a map. The Book of Mormon spends the first section on a map and then goes 'Awol' - to the point where even Malaysia and Africa has been proposed:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Book_of_Mormon_geographical_setting

Edited January 1, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

FWIW, to both of you. I recognise there's no official word from Joseph. Clearly all the church members and leaders were happy to jump on most new American antiquity discovery and cite it as BoM evidence.

But for Joseph to walk through Illinois and say "these are the fields where Nephites walked and died, these are the bones where Nephites died" is more than what came later which was "the latest old discovery is viable" (most not from JS) has a different tone. Why was the man who translates and published the record so certain he was standing on the "plains of the Nephites?"

And if the church today is so 'uncertain' of the geography, why is it so happy for its art and media to tacitly endorse a Central American theory? E.g. The (pretty awful) Testaments movie?