Annotated Book of Mormon

[smac97]

9 hours ago, -Burnside- said:

Quote

I struggle with the Heartland Model because A) its advocates have generally failed to present much in the way of well-reasoned evidence and argument, and B) they instead resort to ad hominem nastiness (such as is very much on display in your post) to critique the Mesoamerican-based models of BOM geography.

I've worked as a litigating attorney for fifteen years now.  I've encountered attorneys who rely on this sort of all-bombast-and-no-substance histrionics.  In pretty much every case, this is because their argument or legal position is deeply flawed or unsupported in some material way.  I keep having this suspicion about Meldrum (and Neville).

Thanks,

-Smac

I didn’t learn the RLDS connection from Meldrum nor Neville.

I didn't say you did.

Quote

Which proves what type of litigator you must have been and who you are now with your false accusations.

I haven't made any false accusations.  Instead, I observed that Heartland Theory folks generally fail to to present much in the way of well-reasoned evidence and argument, and instead resort to ad hominem nastiness.

And here you are, proving my point (again).

Quote

I learned it from the Mesoamerica scholars. Jack Welch notes in the FAQs of BookofMormonCentral that he works with CofC and Restoration Branch scholars. Sorenson and Tvedtnes published information on it, as I noted previously.

Okay.  Not sure how that is a problem.  As Elder (then-President) Uchtdorf so aptly put it: "We seek for truth wherever we may find it."

The Church has a monopoly on priesthood authority, and from and with that comes much truth.  But we cannot claim a monopoly on truth itself, nor can we claim to have a perfect understanding of what truth we have. 

So we pursue truth using all resources available to us.  That can and does include knowledge and ideas obtained and developed in other faith traditions.  So when we are repeatedly exhorted to "seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith" (D&C 88:118, D&C 109:7, 14), I think the Lord contemplated that some of those "best books" were written by people not of our faith.  Catholics.  Anglicans.  Jews.  Baptists.  Muslims.  Buddhists.  And yes, even RLDS/COC.  These books, and the ideas in them, do not supersede revealed/prophetic truths, and they certainly need to be approached in that context.  However, they can certainly enhance our understanding of such things.  And in situations where we lack much in the way of revealed light and knowledge (as pertaining to the geography of the Book of Mormon, for example), it may very well be that those not of our faith can nevertheless help us in our studies.

You seem to be scandalized by the idea that Jack Welch "works with CofC and Restoration Branch scholars."  That seems strange to me.  

As for the origins of the Limited Geography Model, Matthew Roper does quite a good job at tracing its origins, as well as the Hemispheric Theory's: Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations (published in 2004, and gives due credit to Louis Edward Hills, a member of the RLDS Church whom Roper describes as "{t}he first writer to advance a fully limited Book of Mormon geography that confined Book of Mormon events, including the destruction of the Nephites and Jaredites, to ancient Mesoamerica").

For me, studying this issue has long been a "let the chips fall where they may" kind of thing.  Although I went to law school at BYU (where Jack Welch is employed), I never took a class from him, and I have never met him (though I am friends with his son-in-law).  I have met Daniel Peterson once, talked with him by telephone once, and communicated online a handful of times.  I've spoken with Brant Gardner once (in this forum).  Matthew Roper is in my stake (I live in Provo), but I see him rarely, and I have never talked with him about these issues, except to thank him for the above article, which I found helpful and illuminating.  I have never met or communicated with John Sorenson, or Kirk Magleby, or Lou Midgley, or Hugh Nibley, or any of the other folks who have written about or advocated the Mesoamerica/Limited Geography Model(s).

In other words, I have no particular dog in this fight.  No skin in the game.  I am not loyal to a "team," having hardly met or interacted with any of the "players."  I have tried to educate myself by reading materials and coming to informed assessments and still-somewhat-malleable conclusions about this issue.  Again, I have found the arguments advanced by the Heartland Model folks to be, in the main, lacking in reasoned argument and sound evaluation of extant evidence.  This anemic showing is only made worse, and substantially so, by all-bombast-and-no-substance histrionics and ad hominem nastiness such as what you are putting on display here.

Quote

The RLDS source is well known by these Scholars. But not by you, a litigator. 

Actually, I did know about RLDS/COC interest in the geography issue (Matthew Roper having touched on it in his 2004 article, see above).

Quote

A few internet searches on RLDS sites revealed more. This information was hidden pre-internet in the 80s and 90s when it was heavily promoted. But no longer.

So not much of a secret, then (particularly where "Jack Welch notes in the FAQs of BookofMormonCentral that he works with CofC and Restoration Branch scholars").

Quote

But apparently it’s has to be hidden through censorship,

Apparently not, since here you are, talking about it.

Quote

since I obviously got banned and will be again, by the all powerful Nemesis who was too much of a chicken to note it here for others to see in the future, and likely was contacted by the Mesoamerica crybabies on this site who can’t stand the TRUTH, because it destroys their 501(c)(3) business in promoting a RLDS geography fraud started in the 1920s.

And even more ad hominem.  And no substance.

Quote

Then they make a spurious connection to it, to the Prophet Joseph Smith when they found in Church history that Bishop Bernhisel gave the Prophet a copy Stephens’ Mesoamerica book as a gift for asking the Prophet a favor to purchase a plot of land in Nauvoo for Bernhisel. The letter of thanks to Bernhisel was not written in Joseph Smith’s handwriting, as noted in JSPapers, but by John Taylor or Wilford Woodruff.

Roper addresses this.

Quote

Thus this letter somehow in their illogical academic minds,

And even more ad hominem.

Quote

connects the Prophet Joseph Smith in the 1840s to a 1920 RLDS Two-Cumorah Book of Mormon Geography Theory and everything Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and other Church leaders said that had any connection to North America for Book of Mormon geography is put down as speculation - and this makes them intelligent and scholarly.

I am interested in solid and fair and well-reasoned evaluation of the evidence at hand.  Thus we have scholars who often have training in relevant fields, such as Sorenseon and Gardner, but we also have well-read-but-not-necessarily-a-"scholar-in-a-relevant-field" folks like Jeff Lindsay, who "do{es} not consider {him}self a scholar" (though he does hold a PhD in chemical engineering) but who has nevertheless provided a lot of very useful and insightful material that has helped me in my own efforts to better understand Gospel-related topics, including BOM geography.

For me, what marks a person as "intelligent and scholarly" is their output, particularly when that output is published to the world and subjected to scrutiny by those with contrary points of view.

Quote

As if their entire mortal probationary period is prove Joseph Smith and other Church leaders of being wrong.

And even more ad hominem.

Quote

And this is to prove The Book of Mormon is true, or is to fatten their purses at their 501(c)(3)? 

And even more ad hominem.

Quote

But hey, when I attended BYU, Utah County was considered the White Collar crime capital of the World, and apparently still is.  

And even more ad hominem.

Quote

But continue as a litigator and believe Joseph Smith needed a travel book about the excellent Mesoamerica adventures of John Lloyd Stephens to learn the geography of The Book of Mormon, and Oliver Cowdery was a second-witness who you would never call upon as a witness other than to call him a liar.

I honor Joseph Smith for his prophetic calling.  But I am not persuaded that he received revelation as to BOM geography (or if he did, that he left behind competent and probative writings about it).  I think this is why the Church's Gospel Topics essay about "Book of Mormon Geography" (all of these essays having been "approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles") presents a constrained approach to this topic:

Quote

Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, members and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have expressed numerous opinions about the specific locations of the events discussed in the book. Some believe that the history depicted in the Book of Mormon —with the exception of the events in the Near East —occurred in North America, while others believe that it occurred in Central America or South America. Although Church members continue to discuss such theories today, the Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas.
...
The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas.
...
Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken. However, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories. All parties should strive to avoid contention on these matters.

Food for thought.

Quote

Because you’re a “brilliant” litigator -

I never claimed to be "brilliant."  Where are you getting that?

Quote

or were - who makes false accusations and drop the names of Meldrum and Neville to get some brownie points.

I dropped those names because those are the ones that came immediately to mind.

Quote

I bet you couldn’t litigate yourself out of a paper bag.

And even more ad hominem.

You are only proving my previous point in behaving this way.  Over and over and over.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 12, 2019 by smac97

[caspianrex]

On 9/11/2019 at 1:26 PM, RevTestament said:

I know you didn't ask, but I did find this version for $56 with free shipping https://beaconlightbooks.com/product/the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon/

Again, just be aware that this edition apparently includes some very speculative stuff. For instance it references the Newark Holy Stones. I believe these to be a fraud perpetrated on their finder. The decalogue stone is in an aramaic block style lettering the Jews didn't use until after the Babylonian captivity, and therefore would be a form unknown to the Lehites or any other of the "lost" Hebrew tribes. It has Sephardic traits, and was probably an arm phylactery purchased by pranksters trying to get the surveyor fired, and planted where they knew he would find it. I don't believe they created it. Realizing their mistake, they then purchased the keystone, which was in the earlier paleo-Hebrew, and planted it. However, this points to at least one of these stones basically having to be fake, which casts serious doubt on the whole possibility of an early Hebrew American origin for these stones. My guess is that kind of detail is omitted from this annotated version. 

@RevTestament, I know you posted this link awhile back, but I haven't checked in here for quite some time. Thanks so much for sharing the link: I actually decided to go ahead and purchase it from that site! It was about the best deal I've seen on that edition.

I will, of course, be keeping in mind many of the things I've read on this site, as far as the drawbacks to this particular edition of the BoM. 

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, caspianrex said:

@RevTestament, I know you posted this link awhile back, but I haven't checked in here for quite some time. Thanks so much for sharing the link: I actually decided to go ahead and purchase it from that site! It was about the best deal I've seen on that edition.

I will, of course, be keeping in mind many of the things I've read on this site, as far as the drawbacks to this particular edition of the BoM. 

You are welcome. Thanks for your interest in things pertaining to the restored gospel. I know you didn't ask, but I want to clarify my position for the benefit of the reader. I do not consider the Newark Holy Stones to be "fakes," but I believe they were probably somehow imported Sephardic artifacts, that were purchased and planted to perpetrate a fraud upon their finder, Wyrick. However, there is the very nominal chance that they could have been imported by the people of Hagoth or some other Lehites that went back to the Middle East. The Bat Creek Stone has a higher chance of being an authentic artifact. The finder didn't try to point out that it was a paleo Hebrew script, and therefore it went unrecognized for decades - not something that someone who went through the trouble of creating a fake is likely to do... I bring these things up merely because I believe it to be important that we don't promote the restored gospel with a lot of really speculative stuff. If artifacts such as the Bat Creek Stone are used to support the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, I believe that their issues should be also addressed. Unfortunately, I believe, however, that American archaeology has become very prejudiced about interpreting archaeological sites and artifacts in N. America. For awhile this served its cause to promote the doctrine of manifest destiny. Those that have suggested other interpretations - even if only that Vikings beat Columbus to the Americas - have been subjected to loss of their jobs, charges of being diffusionists, etc. That is only beginning to change with a few such as Dennis Stanford of The Smithsonian proposing that some Solutreans made their way to the Americas. I am not trying to bad mouth Rod Meldrum, but I simply disagree with many of his methodologies and conclusions, and he is a contributor to this annotated version. Feel free to let me know via PM what you think of this version  Happy reading!

[Bob Crockett]

On 9/12/2019 at 7:43 AM, smac97 said:

Okay.  Not sure how that is a problem.  As Elder (then-President) Uchtdorf so aptly put it: "We seek for truth wherever we may find it."

The Church has a monopoly on priesthood authority, and from and with that comes much truth.  But we cannot claim a monopoly on truth itself, nor can we claim to have a perfect understanding of what truth we have. 

So we pursue truth using all resources available to us.  That can and does include knowledge and ideas obtained and developed in other faith traditions.  So when we are repeatedly exhorted to "seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith" (D&C 88:118, D&C 109:7, 14), I think the Lord contemplated that some of those "best books" were written by people not of our faith.  Catholics.  Anglicans.  Jews.  Baptists.  Muslims.  Buddhists.  And yes, even RLDS/COC.  These books, and the ideas in them, do not supersede revealed/prophetic truths, and they certainly need to be approached in that context.  However, they can certainly enhance our understanding of such things.  And in situations where we lack much in the way of revealed light and knowledge (as pertaining to the geography of the Book of Mormon, for example), it may very well be that those not of our faith can nevertheless help us in our studies.

Kevin Christensen frequently makes this very argument.  In this paper I point out the serious deficiencies with the MesoAmerican model and the shoddy scholarship that supports it, scholarship that is not likely to be even remotely scientific.  

I don't personally think that "we seek for truth wherever we may find it" justifies using half-truths and lies to deceive the Saints.  The original reason for the MesoAmerican model is the draw the geographic model so small as to be able to ignore contrary evidence a few miles away. I don't think the "we seek for truth wherever we may find it" tautology is justification for pursuing mythical tales and fantasy in the name of science. My paper demonstrates the official church hostility to continued study of the Book of Mormon's geography, but also points to contradictory publication of such matters in the Ensign. 

That doesn't mean I support the Heartland Theory but I point out that more Latter-day Saints seem to believe the Heartland Theory has traction when you compare Amazon sales figures to Dr. Sorenson's books.

 

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Kevin Christensen frequently makes this very argument.  In this paper I point out the serious deficiencies with the MesoAmerican model and the shoddy scholarship that supports it, scholarship that is not likely to be even remotely scientific.  

I don't personally think that "we seek for truth wherever we may find it" justifies using half-truths and lies to deceive the Saints.  The original reason for the MesoAmerican model is the draw the geographic model so small as to be able to ignore contrary evidence a few miles away. I don't think the "we seek for truth wherever we may find it" tautology is justification for pursuing mythical tales and fantasy in the name of science. My paper demonstrates the official church hostility to continued study of the Book of Mormon's geography, but also points to contradictory publication of such matters in the Ensign. 

That doesn't mean I support the Heartland Theory but I point out that more Latter-day Saints seem to believe the Heartland Theory has traction when you compare Amazon sales figures to Dr. Sorenson's books.

 

I agree. If you are going to buy into the belief that we have inspired leaders, then we should at least listen to them.  JS and others spoke of American heartland as being central to the BoM narrative.  I visited several of the ancient mounds while on my mission to Illinois in the1070s. They are every bit as convincing as the ruins in central america. Also, having Nephites in the heartland makes it shorter walk for Moroni and alleviates the need for a silly two hill cumorahs theory.

 

 

 

 

[smac97]

15 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Quote

Okay.  Not sure how that is a problem.  As Elder (then-President) Uchtdorf so aptly put it: "We seek for truth wherever we may find it."

The Church has a monopoly on priesthood authority, and from and with that comes much truth.  But we cannot claim a monopoly on truth itself, nor can we claim to have a perfect understanding of what truth we have. 

So we pursue truth using all resources available to us.  That can and does include knowledge and ideas obtained and developed in other faith traditions.  So when we are repeatedly exhorted to "seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith" (D&C 88:118, D&C 109:7, 14), I think the Lord contemplated that some of those "best books" were written by people not of our faith.  Catholics.  Anglicans.  Jews.  Baptists.  Muslims.  Buddhists.  And yes, even RLDS/COC.  These books, and the ideas in them, do not supersede revealed/prophetic truths, and they certainly need to be approached in that context.  However, they can certainly enhance our understanding of such things.  And in situations where we lack much in the way of revealed light and knowledge (as pertaining to the geography of the Book of Mormon, for example), it may very well be that those not of our faith can nevertheless help us in our studies.

Kevin Christensen frequently makes this very argument.  In this paper I point out the serious deficiencies with the MesoAmerican model and the shoddy scholarship that supports it, scholarship that is not likely to be even remotely scientific.  

The geography of The Book of Mormon doesn't seem to be a "scientific" issue.  It's more a matter of history / geography (as evidenced by, for example, your paper, which is chockablock full of citations to historical resources, but very little "scientific" literature).

15 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't personally think that "we seek for truth wherever we may find it" justifies using half-truths and lies to deceive the Saints. 

Nor do I.  I'm not sure why you would think I am attempting any such jusitification.

15 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

The original reason for the MesoAmerican model is the draw the geographic model so small as to be able to ignore contrary evidence a few miles away.

I'm not sure that's a fair characterization.

Moreover, there are many Latter-day Saint scholars who have written on this topic.  

15 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't think the "we seek for truth wherever we may find it" tautology

I don't think "we seek for truth wherever we may find it" is a tautology.

15 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

is justification for pursuing mythical tales and fantasy in the name of science.

Again, I agree.  Again, I'm not sure why you would think I am attempting any such jusitification.

15 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

My paper demonstrates the official church hostility to continued study of the Book of Mormon's geography, but also points to contradictory publication of such matters in the Ensign. 

I'm not sure the Church's position on this issue can be fairly characterized as "hostile."  See here:

Quote

Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, members and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have expressed numerous opinions about the specific locations of the events discussed in the book. Some believe that the history depicted in the Book of Mormon—with the exception of the events in the Near East—occurred in North America, while others believe that it occurred in Central America or South America. Although Church members continue to discuss such theories today, the Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas.

The Prophet Joseph Smith himself accepted what he felt was evidence of Book of Mormon civilizations in both North America and Central America. While traveling with Zion’s Camp in 1834, Joseph wrote to his wife Emma that they were “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 and their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity.” In 1842, the Church newspaper Times and Seasons published articles under Joseph Smith’s editorship that identified the ruins of ancient native civilizations in Mexico and Central America as further evidence of the Book of Mormon’s historicity.

The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. President M. Russell Ballard, Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, reminded members that “the Book of Mormon is not a textbook on topography. Speculation on the geography of the Book of Mormon may mislead instead of enlighten; such a study can be a distraction from its divine purpose.”

Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken. However, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories. All parties should strive to avoid contention on these matters.

"Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken" ≠ "official church hostility to continued study of the Book of Mormon's geography."

I don't think the Church wants to commit itself to a position on the specifics of BOM geography because we presently lack sufficient light and knowledge to confirm any particular theory, and because the Church wants us to focus on the spiritual content of the book.

15 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

That doesn't mean I support the Heartland Theory but I point out that more Latter-day Saints seem to believe the Heartland Theory has traction when you compare Amazon sales figures to Dr. Sorenson's books.

Which may just as well be attributable to the apparently successful commercialized efforts of Bro. Meldrum to advance his theory.  For example, some years ago my wife bought me one of Meldrum's books.  She later asked me if I liked it, and I explained to her that I had read parts of it, but that I found much of Meldrum's theorizing to be problematic.  She was a little surprised.  She said she had bought it for me not because she had reviewed the author, but because the cover was pretty and she thought (correctly) that I would be interested in the subject matter.

I think most members of the Church are fairly indifferent to the particulars as to the location of the BOM events.  Of those who have given the matter substantial thought and study, I would say most subscribe to a generalized Mesoamerican setting.  I think the hemispheric model is not held by many, and Meldrum's theories do not seem to be holding much sway, either.

I said previously: "I struggle with the Heartland Model because A) its advocates have generally failed to present much in the way of well-reasoned evidence and argument, and B) they instead resort to ad hominem nastiness (such as is very much on display in your post) to critique the Mesoamerican-based models of BOM geography."

Accusations like "half-truths and lies to deceive the Saints" do not help advance the discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[caspianrex]

On 10/16/2019 at 9:55 AM, caspianrex said:

@RevTestament, I know you posted this link awhile back, but I haven't checked in here for quite some time. Thanks so much for sharing the link: I actually decided to go ahead and purchase it from that site! It was about the best deal I've seen on that edition.

I will, of course, be keeping in mind many of the things I've read on this site, as far as the drawbacks to this particular edition of the BoM. 

I just received my Annotated Book of Mormon (Hocking & Meldrum) in the mail. And I have to say, it's a really lovely book, aesthetically speaking. (And it came with a free pen/stylus, which I wasn't expecting.) Just glossing through it, yes, a lot of the Heartland Geography stuff is a bit odd, if lavishly illustrated. But the layout is very well done, the typeface is nice and big (which my aging eyes appreciate), and the binding feels sturdy. (The marker ribbon is a bit too long, but that's a minor detail.) I will try to remember to share some other impressions of the actual content later, once I've had a chance to dig into it. Perhaps my perspective as a non-member may end up being interesting to a few people on this forum. Again, thanks to @RevTestament for letting me know about BeaconLight Books. Ordering the book from them really saved me a pretty big chunk of dough...

[caspianrex]

On 10/23/2019 at 2:36 PM, caspianrex said:

I just received my Annotated Book of Mormon (Hocking & Meldrum) in the mail. And I have to say, it's a really lovely book, aesthetically speaking. (And it came with a free pen/stylus, which I wasn't expecting.) Just glossing through it, yes, a lot of the Heartland Geography stuff is a bit odd, if lavishly illustrated. But the layout is very well done, the typeface is nice and big (which my aging eyes appreciate), and the binding feels sturdy. (The marker ribbon is a bit too long, but that's a minor detail.) I will try to remember to share some other impressions of the actual content later, once I've had a chance to dig into it. Perhaps my perspective as a non-member may end up being interesting to a few people on this forum.

A few first impressions...

As I mentioned in my previous post, the book is nicely produced: the cover is sturdy, it's got gilt edged pages, there's a (long) marker ribbon, and the font is very legible. O

One of the big drawbacks, apart from the Heartland Geography stuff that's already been debated in previous posts (among people much more knowledgeable about the topic than I), is that there is far TOO MUCH supplementary material. With even a casual browse through the pages, one is almost overwhelmed by the constant pictures of archaeological artifacts, quotes from the Founding Fathers, quotes from various LDS historical figures, etc. It's all too much to sort through. And I think that's part of the editors' strategy: to convince people of their arguments by overwhelming the reader with text, rather than presenting a logical, systematic thesis. It's pretty clear, of course, that the book is not designed for non-member readers such as myself. Neither is it designed for the type of reader who has posted earlier on this thread: knowledgeable people who have read about the debate between Heartland Model and Mesoamerican Model proponents. I suspect the book is designed to "convert" LDS readers who may have been curious about the geography described in the BOM, but who haven't really read much about it. (I may be misjudging the editors, but that is my impression, based on the sheer volume of information that is spread throughout the Annotated Edition.)

Apart from the geography stuff, I do think the color-coding of the text (red for when the Lord speaks, blue for quoted scripture, etc.) is pretty handy for the reader. I haven't studied all of it, to be sure that the color-coding is done accurately, but I do think the convention has value for the reader who wants to dig into the text. Poetic text is set apart typographically, a feature used by other editions, such as Grant Hardy's and the Zarahemla Research Foundation's "Restored Covenant Edition." Different editors have handled that convention in slightly different ways, but it is a very useful convention, visually.

If you want to see what some of the page layout in the Annotated Edition looks like, this Book Preview is a pretty good "sneak peek."

[Calm]

5 hours ago, caspianrex said:

I suspect the book is designed to "convert" LDS readers who may have been curious about the geography described in the BOM, but who haven't really read much about it.

I think you are spot on...outside the make money off the book itself factor.

[mfbukowski]

On 10/17/2019 at 8:13 AM, smac97 said:

I don't think "we seek for truth wherever we may find it" is a tautology

Certainly at least an interesting statement philosophically. 

For one who believes that "truth" is something to be found as opposed to created, it well could be a tautology.  If truth is found, and one finds it - TA DA!  Tautology!   We found the Holy Grail and its existence is therefore "true".  Where else would we have found that truth if it were not where we found the Holy Grail?

On the other hand how does one prove -1- that there is only 1 Holy Grail- the actual cup used by Jesus at the last supper.   How do we know that Jesus did not consecrate many cups as his blood at the same time, as we believe is possible, since that is what we do every Sunday- as we bless the sacramental water in many tiny cups? 

How does one prove -2- that the whole thing is not a legend?  How does one even prove -3- that Jesus "saved" anyone from anything??  How do we prove that we are not just wasting time by talking about it?

Speaking of "truth" in this context gets a little..... shall we say "shaky"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Grail

In these cases, is it TRUE that "we seek for truth wherever we may find it" IS a tautology??

I would vote that it cannot be such.

But what is crazy Bukowski's point today?  My point is that simply, as usual,  truth is what you believe it is, and not out there to be "found" in such cases as the Holy Grail AND Book of Mormon Geology.    I think that one is a great analogy for the other!

Now of course there are ways of verifying things scientifically- but there is NO WAY of "proving" the BOM as "true" by any of these means.

The only way of knowing the truth of the BOM is through judging its spiritual principles in one's heart and life.

Then we wouldn't have to wade through pages and pages of "science" about what cannot be scientific EVER anyway, such as Book of Mormon geography.

There are no experiments except Moroni's promise in Moroni 10:4-5 which can prove the book's truth, and unfortunately that "evidence" is not "objective" to every observer. 

I think our outreach efforts would be greatly improved by at least acknowledging these issues and having a ready. coherent way of presenting the truth of the BOM to folks who are interested in it, because the lack of such an approach allows others to provide THEIR definition of truth to fill the vacuum, and I can promise that view is NOT conducive to the success of the message.

Relying on artifacts and geology is not working.  Period.

It will never work because religion is not about artifacts and geology.   

 

 

Edited October 25, 2019 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

On 10/25/2019 at 9:15 AM, caspianrex said:

A few first impressions...

As I mentioned in my previous post, the book is nicely produced: the cover is sturdy, it's got gilt edged pages, there's a (long) marker ribbon, and the font is very legible. O

I am holding a copy in my hands, and I agree the paper and print quality are high. I think it is a version the producers are proud of, and hope that it will become a valued edition.

On 10/25/2019 at 9:15 AM, caspianrex said:

One of the big drawbacks, apart from the Heartland Geography stuff that's already been debated in previous posts (among people much more knowledgeable about the topic than I), is that there is far TOO MUCH supplementary material. With even a casual browse through the pages, one is almost overwhelmed by the constant pictures of archaeological artifacts, quotes from the Founding Fathers, quotes from various LDS historical figures, etc. It's all too much to sort through. And I think that's part of the editors' strategy: to convince people of their arguments by overwhelming the reader with text, rather than presenting a logical, systematic thesis. It's pretty clear, of course, that the book is not designed for non-member readers such as myself. Neither is it designed for the type of reader who has posted earlier on this thread: knowledgeable people who have read about the debate between Heartland Model and Mesoamerican Model proponents. I suspect the book is designed to "convert" LDS readers who may have been curious about the geography described in the BOM, but who haven't really read much about it. (I may be misjudging the editors, but that is my impression, based on the sheer volume of information that is spread throughout the Annotated Edition.)

I really don't believe the producers of this version are aiming at LDS audiences. Yes, that is one of their concerns. They really believe in their model, and  are trying to present it without too much justification. They believe it will strengthen the testimony of members, as well as those non-members who have had issues with believing the claims of the Church. In this regard I believe this book makes a valiant attempt. I am sure many, many man hours went into producing it, and I actually like many aspects about it. So in this vein I tip my hat to them even if I would do things a bit differently, and would not present much of the information in the same manner. Whereas you believe this work sometimes presents too much information, I believe it sometimes really does not present enough in order to adequately  support its desired effects, and have alluded to this in some of my other posts.

On 10/25/2019 at 9:15 AM, caspianrex said:

Apart from the geography stuff, I do think the color-coding of the text (red for when the Lord speaks, blue for quoted scripture, etc.) is pretty handy for the reader. I haven't studied all of it, to be sure that the color-coding is done accurately, but I do think the convention has value for the reader who wants to dig into the text. Poetic text is set apart typographically, a feature used by other editions, such as Grant Hardy's and the Zarahemla Research Foundation's "Restored Covenant Edition." Different editors have handled that convention in slightly different ways, but it is a very useful convention, visually.

I think one worthy goal would be to point out the Hebraisms in the early editions of the Book of Mormon, which even Grant Hardy does not fully accomplish. This would serve to emphasize that most of the changes which have been made to the Book of Mormon were to tone down the Hebraisms so as to make the book more readable in English. 

On 10/25/2019 at 9:15 AM, caspianrex said:

If you want to see what some of the page layout in the Annotated Edition looks like, this Book Preview is a pretty good "sneak peek."

I did not purchase this version, but my wife ran across it in a local Costco, so if anyone lives in Utah, and wants to look at this book, they might try their Costco. She felt compelled to buy it, and it was priced at $50. Although it is not exactly what I would produce, I think it is a somewhat admirable work, and have enjoyed perusing it thus far. Being that I will probably never produce an annotated full version of the Book of Mormon, so far this comes closest to what I think I would produce.