Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Duncan

Statement on Book of Mormon geography

Recommended Posts

It was well done.  Nice they weren't dismissive of the interest, but placing it in context in terms of the importance of other things taught.

Quote

Speaking of the book’s history and geography, President Russell M. Nelson taught: “Interesting as these matters may be, study of the Book of Mormon is most rewarding when one focuses on its primary purpose—to testify of Jesus Christ. By comparison, all other issues are incidental.”4

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting statement, in my opinion (emphasis added):

Quote

The Church takes no position on the geography of the Book of Mormon except that the events it describes took place in the Americas.

 

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Interesting statement, in my opinion (emphasis added):

That leaves out Rajah Manchou.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That leaves out Rajah Manchou.

Yep.

And as I've often pointed out, the text itself never positively identifies the Americas.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The article acknowledges that there is a “truth” associated with the geography, but makes obvious that the Church wants nothing to do with being curious about, discussing, or claiming a geographic “truth”.   

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Gervin said:

The article acknowledges that there is a “truth” associated with the geography, but makes obvious that the Church wants nothing to do with being curious about, discussing, or claiming a geographic “truth”.   

I guess they realize they aren't in the geography business but salvation , or as Joseph Smith said, "fundamental principles" but you're right it happened somewhere but resources from the Church aren't going to be put into figuring it out

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I guess they realize they aren't in the geography business but salvation , or as Joseph Smith said, "fundamental principles" but you're right it happened somewhere but resources from the Church aren't going to be put into figuring it out

Well, the church has many business interests in the secular world, so I guess no one is going to hold it against them if they don’t want to put any financial resources toward this topic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, cinepro said:

But they really don't have to.  God could easily reveal where any of the locations were, and President Nelson could simply stand in Conference and say "Thus saith the Lord, Zarahemla was at XYZ location, Bountiful was at ABC location."  That's all it takes.  Right now, you have a lot of Church members totally wasting their time, money and energy pursuing a totally wrong geography.  It would be the merciful thing to do.

And before anyone argues that would be outside the scope of the kind of thing God would reveal, I would recommend reviewing the D&C to see what, exactly, God feels is worthy of revelation (and canonization).

You know I love your posts!!!!!!!!! I wonder if people feel God revealed seemingly useless things to people in the past and we today treat it as such why would he reveal something like this to us now? Would we criticize it? Do we know how people who received these dumb revelations felt about it? Would people in the future say what a dumb thing to reveal, BOM geography 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/30/2019 at 11:31 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

That leaves out Rajah Manchou.

Nah. My model doesn't exclude the Americas, or the West Indies as they would have been known to anybody writing a history in Early Modern English. 

The unanswered and undiscussed questions that Rajah Manchou still has are:

(1) Who were the grandsons of Noah that departed in boats just after the destruction of the tower and arrived on a peninsula called Comoro/Kamara?
(2) Who was the merchant who woke up from a divine vision to find instruments leading him to board a ship to become the founder of civilization in southern Comoro/Kamara?
(3) Why does the founding myth of northern Kamara align with the account of the Mulekites, namely an exiled prince from the near east arriving in a new land?
(4) Why do the archaeological findings of ancient Comoro/Kamara date to within 10 years of the Lehite arrival?
(5) Why do we not know more about these accounts throughout history of Israelites, Rechabites and the Sons of Moses leaving Jerusalem (with brass plates) in 600 BC and sailing to a peninsula called Rahma/Kamara?

A new DNA paper confirms that the Karen and Mon tribes (who founded ancient Kamara) came from the middle east and the near east. In other words, it is confirmed that the people that I claim are related to the Book of Mormon narrative are R1a1a1b (Mon) and G1b (Karen). These are western haplogroups (Iran and the Middle East) arriving on a peninsula named Comoro/Kamara during the Book of Mormon time period carried by tribes who claim to have once had a Golden Book of God that was lost, but will be returned. 

In other words, every aspect of the Book of Mormon fits into history. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

A new DNA paper confirms that the Karen and Mon tribes (who founded ancient Kamara) came from the middle east and the near east.

Thanks! You just reminded me that I haven't RSVP-ed to my close Mon friends yet to let them know I'm attending their upcoming National Day.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thanks! You just reminded me that I haven't RSVP-ed to my close Mon friends yet to let them know I'm attending their upcoming National Day.

Sounds fun. Mons and Mormons throw the best parties.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Sounds fun. Mons and Mormons throw the best parties.

The food will be fantastic, but the amount of alcohol consumed always detracts a bit for me, especially after the 20th sweaty hug or so.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The food will be fantastic, but the amount of alcohol consumed always detracts a bit for me, especially after the 20th sweaty hug or so.

That's funny

Share this post


Link to post

One location we know of, Cumorah's Hill...

Cue the music: Steven Kapp Perry begins to play

"Computer, location of origin of the ancient inhabitants of America"

"Ancient inhabitants are Siberian dwelling Asiatic people who moved along the Berring Strait 20,000 years ago, the ancestors of the Clovis people who spread throughout most of the Americas"

"Computer, I mean the OTHER ancient inhabitants of America..."

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Duncan said:

I guess they realize they aren't in the geography business but salvation , or as Joseph Smith said, "fundamental principles" but you're right it happened somewhere but resources from the Church aren't going to be put into figuring it out

yes that was attempted and the failures mounted.  It's wise for the church, of course, to get out of that business.  I wonder how long it will be until the church takes no official position on the historicity of the book now.  I think on the same principle the Church will have to retract on it as well--"As long as our members focus on the teachings of Jesus, through this scripture, there is no reason to treat the book as a work of ancient American history.  It is and should be treated as scripture, but the church has no official position whether the events described within it's pages ever really happened."   The lead into the non-position taken might reference the likelihood that the events in the Bible, as described, also likely did not take place.  Not long after that the Church will have to say any writing can be inspired just as the Bible and BoM and truth is found in the principles of goodness and virtue pushed in various avenues throughout the world.  In truth, though, all of that will be a good step forward for the church.  

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, cinepro said:

But they really don't have to.  God could easily reveal where any of the locations were, and President Nelson could simply stand in Conference and say "Thus saith the Lord, Zarahemla was at XYZ location, Bountiful was at ABC location."  That's all it takes.  Right now, you have a lot of Church members totally wasting their time, money and energy pursuing a totally wrong geography.  It would be the merciful thing to do.

And before anyone argues that would be outside the scope of the kind of thing God would reveal, I would recommend reviewing the D&C to see what, exactly, God feels is worthy of revelation (and canonization).

The article feels very sleight-of-hand.  The Church has no problem weighing-in on the Book of Mormon's proximity to ancient language and linguistics 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/10/i-have-a-question/is-the-writing-in-the-book-of-mormon-characteristic-of-the-hebrew-language?lang=eng&clang=ase&country=mx

But, you "want to talk geography?  Focus on more important things."

Why is the church comfortable delving into ancient linguistic discussions, but pointedly instructing members to keep their questions and discussions of ancient geography away from the church?    Simple.  To make a case for ancient linguistics you need only defend your assumptions; "this is my interpretation of this word, this phrase, this phraseology, etc."  this is why it is important, etc., etc." The Book of Mormon can only be approached, first, via the English language.  Therefore, the Book testify's to its own veracity; who's to say otherwise?

On the other hand, the language of geography is complex but reveals itself in a mostly unambiguous way through landforms, outcroppings, rocks, water, erosion, and every-thing-science-101.  But it's not circular, as the example above.  It is always linear.  Naturally, so to speak, it tells the story of time, and that story includes every man-made item, or impression of an item, that lies under, over, or in between this land-language. 

"Setting" is what they teach in Writing 101.  Where is your story based?  People have a natural curiosity about such things.  Some a scholarly.  Why would the Church shy away from the pursuit of its ancient and sacred homelands?  Where is your story set?

"We're staying out of this one," comes across as rather sad.

Edited by Gervin
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The Church statement destroys the Mesoamerica geography theory which claims North America was never involved.

It was a theory which came from the Apostate RLDS Church anyway and plagiarized by current LDS Apologists. 

Here’s the book published in 1924 in Independence, MO by Louis Edward Hills a member of the RLDS who got his idea from an older RLDS member HA Stebbins who died in 1920. (Dr John L Sorenson was born in 1924 for a timeline comparison.)

https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007560520

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89058377359;view=1up;seq=5;skin=mobile

On pages 131-132 Hills states the same blithering stupidity repeated today, that Moroni never left Mexico, etc

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89058377359;view=1up;seq=135;skin=mobile

This in contrast to Oliver Cowdery stating in Letter VII that the final Jaredite and Nephite battles were in New York at the Hill Cumorah:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/90

But no, the so-called Scholars of today couldn’t figure this out.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Gervin said:

Well, the church has many business interests in the secular world, so I guess no one is going to hold it against them if they don’t want to put any financial resources toward this topic.

Those business interests are ultimately guided into those activities that invite, encourage and support individuals finding salvation (with a Big S) in Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Duncan said:

You know I love your posts!!!!!!!!! I wonder if people feel God revealed seemingly useless things to people in the past and we today treat it as such why would he reveal something like this to us now? Would we criticize it? Do we know how people who received these dumb revelations felt about it? Would people in the future say what a dumb thing to reveal, BOM geography 

That is why we are taught to "seek learning even by study, and also by faith," no matter the endeavor and no matter whether we are at a personal "good, better or best" (or even "okay" level of endeavor.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Gervin said:

The article feels very sleight-of-hand.  The Church has no problem weighing-in on the Book of Mormon's proximity to ancient language and linguistics 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/10/i-have-a-question/is-the-writing-in-the-book-of-mormon-characteristic-of-the-hebrew-language?lang=eng&clang=ase&country=mx

But, you "want to talk geography?  Focus on more important things."

Why is the church comfortable delving into ancient linguistic discussions, but pointedly instructing members to keep their questions and discussions of ancient geography away from the church?    Simple.  To make a case for ancient linguistics you need only defend your assumptions; "this is my interpretation of this word, this phrase, this phraseology, etc."  this is why it is important, etc., etc." The Book of Mormon can only be approached, first, via the English language.  Therefore, the Book testify's to its own veracity; who's to say otherwise?

On the other hand, the language of geography is complex but reveals itself in a mostly unambiguous way through landforms, outcroppings, rocks, water, erosion, and every-thing-science-101.  But it's not circular, as the example above.  It is always linear.  Naturally, so to speak, it tells the story of time, and that story includes every man-made item, or impression of an item, that lies under, over, or in between this land-language. 

"Setting" is what they teach in Writing 101.  Where is your story based?  People have a natural curiosity about such things.  Some a scholarly.  Why would the Church shy away from the pursuit of its ancient and sacred homelands?  Where is your story set?

"We're staying out of this one," comes across as rather sad.

The Church certainly has learned a lot in 32 years!

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding the notion of "the kind of thing God would reveal:, I recognize a similar line of thinking in Riskas.

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

As to what the D&C offers on what God would reveal, I notice two very specific conditions regarding revelation.  Asking, and Expedience.   Those LDS leaders who have occasionally penned such statements downplaying the search for definitive and authoritative geographical correlations are not themselves noted for providing extensive evidence of serious studying it out in their own minds on that that topic. I don't think that is coincidental. And besides that, regarding the necessary component of expedience, the pattern of behavior that God displays in the scriptures shows a willingness and even purposeful desire on his part to withhold information in the interest of trying our faith, rather than, say, settling everything for all time in one extensive, all encompassing voice of thunder that not only removes all doubt and questions, but ensures that no leader will ever disappoint any follower.

2

I don't think that the prospect of future revelation means that a particular course of study is worth studying.  A subject matter, such as whether chocolate is part of the word of wisdom, is not worthy of study although theoretically, God may so reveal it. I've never heard of Riskas.

My paper studying the church's view of geography, prior to the recent statement, is here .  It is now dated.  I tried half-heartedly to publish it but there wasn't any interest in the two venues I checked with.  My paper concludes that despite the fact the Church has been officially neutral, it has leaned towards the Sorenson model.   Which model I think edges on frivolity.  

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Church members are asked not to teach theories about Book of Mormon geography in Church settings

I guess that means that outside of the 2-hour block and other official meetings, members can speculate all they want, including...

https://www.almaldstours.us/book-of-mormon-tours-in-mexico

Edited by Thinking

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...