Duncan Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 https://www.lds.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/book-of-mormon-geography?lang=eng&fbclid=IwAR3wnZwTbI48B7dvV_YDy7__n5-FvXJxfBFpOdYjJawLr4OU5pTLzinSBmI It's nice they did this 3 Link to comment
Calm Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 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 2 Link to comment
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) 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 January 30, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan 1 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Interesting statement, in my opinion (emphasis added): That leaves out Rajah Manchou. Link to comment
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment
Gervin Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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”. Link to comment
Duncan Posted January 31, 2019 Author Share Posted January 31, 2019 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 3 Link to comment
Gervin Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment
Popular Post cinepro Posted January 31, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 1 hour 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 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). Edited January 31, 2019 by cinepro 7 Link to comment
Duncan Posted January 31, 2019 Author Share Posted January 31, 2019 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 Link to comment
Rajah Manchou Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. 2 Link to comment
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. Link to comment
Rajah Manchou Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. Link to comment
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. 2 Link to comment
Jean-Luc Picard Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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 Link to comment
Jean-Luc Picard Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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..." Link to comment
stemelbow Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. Link to comment
Gervin Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 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 January 31, 2019 by Gervin 2 Link to comment
Burnside Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. Link to comment
Popular Post Kevin Christensen Posted January 31, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 13 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). But as it happens, that isn't all it takes. Remember this: And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; 26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; 27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; 28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time. And this: Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. And this: Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand; 79 Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms— 80 That ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to magnify the calling whereunto I have called you, and the mission with which I have commissioned you. Regarding the notion of "the kind of thing God would reveal:, I recognize a similar line of thinking in Riskas. Quote Despite his chronic complaints about the toxic effects that such authoritarian parenting and religious instruction can cause, Riskas asks why God does not “use his putative power to more directly, efficiently, and tellingly to accomplish his alleged purposes and promote the required and necessary knowledge of his existence as theologically conceived?”38 And why, he asks “the absence of divine intervention by notably and consistently stopping or even significantly reducing or eliminating and/or at least explaining, through personal revelation, this god’s specific reasons for allowing such human and natural evil.”39 Later he asks rhetorically, “Wouldn’t he unquestionably and irrefutably, beyond all doubt, establish up front – through demonstration, coherent explanation, and facilitated understanding, – god’s and his [Christ’s] existence and divinity, god’s gospel, and god’s mind and will and word once and for all to all mankind?”40 Why, Riskas seems to be asking – without realizing either the fact or the implications – why does God not behave like a suppressive, authoritarian, controlling parent of the sort that he himself rebelled against during the 1960s? A parent, a society, or a religion that behaves that way, Riskas says, is toxic, and a God who does not behave that way somehow demonstrates non-existence. Imagine living in a universe, or for that matter with a parent, for whom efficiency and not love was the first and great value upon which all else stands, before which every other concern must be compromised. In a conflict of values, freedom and love bow to efficiency. Does that sound like paradise? From my perspective, his system deconstructs. 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. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited January 31, 2019 by Kevin Christensen 8 Link to comment
CV75 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. Link to comment
CV75 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. Link to comment
CV75 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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! Link to comment
Bob Crockett Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 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. Link to comment
Thinking Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 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 January 31, 2019 by Thinking Link to comment
Recommended Posts