How does the Local Geographic Theory

[thesometimesaint]

Who Knows:

I say let him live his life to the best of his ability, being kind to his neighbors, loving the Lord, praying often and doing all the good deeds that he can. Everything will work out for his betterment when he comes before his maker.

[Who Knows]

Or, he wrote it, and in his mind it all happened here in north america.  Then later, when discrepancies with it happening there showed up, he changed his mind.

either way.

That option is not available to someone who is making a good-faith attempt to understand what the document says.

Projecting one's own level of integrity into the mind of the Prophet is an old standard anti-Mormon game. It requires no knowledge, no intelligence and no imagination; just the utmost bad faith, all of which puts it within reach of our critics.

Merely assuming that Joseph is lying every time he says something the critic doesn't like is a drop-dead lazy way of writing oneself a blank cheque. It is also inconsistent with the facts we do know. The absolute starting point for anyone who really wants to understand what Joseph says and does is, or should be, the one established fact of his life: that he was a genuine religious believer. You do not have to share his belief, but you do have to take it as axiomatic that he did believe it. If no less a scholar than Eduard Meyer regards this as the single most compelling explanation and the only way to make sense of what Joseph actually did, you might think it worth your consideration.

Regards,

Pahoran

Excuse my Lord Pahoran, I am not worthy to be in your presence.

I was just playing along with the 'assumption' game in previous posts.

[Who Knows]

Who Knows:

I say let him live his life to the best of his ability, being kind to his neighbors, loving the Lord, praying often and doing all the good deeds that he can. Everything will work out for his betterment when he comes before his maker.

No, I mean, lets assume this happened back then - someone who was with Joseph at the time. If he felt the prophet was wrong, and he told the prophet that, what do you think would have happened to the guy? What do you think prophet Joseph would have told that guy?

I can already see Pahoran getting enraged with my posting as I'm sure it doesn't conform to some unknown to me rule of scholarly debate...

[thesometimesaint]

Who knows:

I was just paraphrasing JS.

[Daniel Peterson]

A very useful and relevant article is Matthew Roper's "Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations," published a while back in the FARMS Review.

It can be read (and a more eye-pleasing PDF version accessed) at

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=555

Limited geographical models for the Book of Mormon have a much longer history than many critics want to recognize.

[charity]

Who knows wrote: "No, I mean, lets assume this happened back then - someone who was with Joseph at the time. If he felt the prophet was wrong, and he told the prophet that, what do you think would have happened to the guy? What do you think prophet Joseph would have told that guy?"

Challenged him to two out of three stick pulls?

[maxrep12]

Merely assuming that Joseph is lying every time he says something the critic doesn't like is a drop-dead lazy way of writing oneself a blank cheque.

Many of these drop dead lazy critics, served missions and served well in their respective church callings. Many of their blank checks took the form of tithes to the church.

Any viable assessment of the BOM has to include the options of inspiration and its counter part, fabrication.

[thesometimesaint]

maxrep12:

I'll state for the record that it is "possble" for the BoM to be a fabrication. But from my perspective the probability hovers right around NIL.

[Pahoran]

Merely assuming that Joseph is lying every time he says something the critic doesn't like is a drop-dead lazy way of writing oneself a blank cheque.

Many of these drop dead lazy critics, served missions and served well in their respective church callings.

If they did, they faded in the stretch.

Many of their blank checks took the form of tithes to the church.

I fail to see how paying tithing buys oneself a licence to make baseless accusations.

Any viable assessment of the BOM has to include the options of inspiration and its counter part, fabrication.

According to whom? Do you know this, or are you merely guessing?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

No, I mean, lets assume this happened back then - someone who was with Joseph at the time.  If he felt the prophet was wrong, and he told the prophet that, what do you think would have happened to the guy?  What do you think prophet Joseph would have told that guy?

I rather suspect that would depend on how the fellow expressed his opinions. Joseph didn't take kindly to insults, but he didn't have a problem with alternative opinions, and in fact was opposed to any attempt to enforce uniformity of opinion on people.

I can already see Pahoran getting enraged with my posting as I'm sure it doesn't conform to some unknown to me rule of scholarly debate...

Really? Why?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Freedom]

An official publication such as the ensign or times and seasons is not a source of doctrine. The only sources for doctrine are canonized scriptures or official declarations. All things in the church are done by common consent. It it has not been presented before the church as scripture than it is not. Nothing any prophet says is doctrine unless it is presented before the church as such. We follow the counsel of the prophet but that does not make his counsel doctrine. This is how we know. Anything they said that has not been presented before the church as doctrine is counsel and postulation.

[Jaybear]

CI"

It's quite possible that Joseph and Brigham didn't consider them speculations. From their point of view it probably just made sense. However, we know for a fact that Smith was fond of speculation and lamented that fact that this was denied to him because certain "zealots" (as you term them) would not allow him that luxury and instead took every word he said as divine pronouncement.

I see nothing wrong with speculating. I do it all the time. JS, BY, everybody should have that luxury. But, there is a difference between offering speculation and deliberately misleading people.

I would "speculate" that that JS' problem with zealots taking his every word as divine pronouncement was in significant part a problem of his own making. Afterall, BY and JS claimed to be Prophets, not archeologists. When there is no archeological data whatsoever to support their findings, is it not reasonable for a zealot to assume they were speaking from divine inspiration?

Either way, I have yet to see a statement that says, "Thus saith the Lord, Zarahemla, that great city, is located at xxxxx location." In fact, I haven't seen that for the Hill Cumoroh or any other disputed site.

Nor have I seen a statement, "I may be wrong, and mind you I am just speculating, but I think what have here are the bones of a white lamanite, named Zelph..."

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Let's turn tables just a little bit. So my speculation is fine, but yours is deliberately leading people astray?

[Dale]

Did Joseph Smith test the inspiration about Manti to make sure God really was speaking to him & not another voice?

Does the Book of Mormon text allow for Manti to be located where he said it did?

[Laban the Younger]

Truth:

I'll simply refer you to what the Times and Seasons editor Joseph Smith said concerning the then new discoveries in Central America.

I believe Central America fits into the Hempispheric model, since it is part of the hemisphere. If Joseph included Central America as part of the book of mormon setting, it would fit with the hemispheric theory. It's his statements about other Book of Mormon sites in the Northeastern US that contradict the Limited Geography theory.

[thesometimesaint]

Laban the Younger.

The invasion of Granada took took place in the Western Hemisphere. I wouldn't call it an invasion of the Western Hemisphere.

And where were any of those statements EVER a Revelation from the Church?

[Kevin Christensen]

The camp passed through Huntsville, in Randolph County [Missouri], which has been appointed as one of the Stakes of Zion, and is the ancient site of the City of Manti.... [sept. 1838] (The Latter-day Saints' Millennial Star, "History of Joseph Smith," Vol. 16, page 296, May 13, 1854)

I believe it was John Sorenson that pointed out that the internal text of the Book of Mormon has Manti in the Land South, in the highlands near the headwaters of the Sidon. To demonstrate that this is a correct identification, the trick is in finding a northward flowing river in Missouri that empties into the Sea East. (Pursing this issue necessarily highlights the many reasons why the Grijalva is a good candidate for the Sidon.) There are also problems arising because in the Book of Mormon, Manti is clearly in the Land South. The Times and Seasons Commentaries in the 1840s obviously place the land North far South of this claim about Manti.

Also with the Joseph Smith History, one has to be careful in identifying who said Joseph Smith said what. And then, in considering whether he spoke prophetically or as himself. In this case, it sounds to me like the opinion is comparable to Joseph Smith's surprise to find that Jerusalem had walls.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Truth]

The problem Kevin is that the BoM states all the destruction that occurred, geologic changes, and so forth altered the land. Based on that, I in no way think you can look at a modern map and apply it to what things were like at that time. I am not sure, but in reality after Christ's death, not many cities are mentioned. There is a rapid acceleration in the narrative after Christ came.

Furthermore, I just cannot imagine Joseph out of the blue suddenly declaring that the city of Manti is several miles west of Huntsville, MO without any reason behind it. What would have prompted him to say such a thing?

[Kevin Christensen]

I disagree. The problem comes from a highly questionable interpretation of the passage about changes at the destruction. As Sorenson and others have pointed out, Mormon compiled and edited the the records from before the destruction, and he had no trouble identifying various locations based on the pre-destruction records. For instance, he knew that Cumorah and the Jaredite Ramah were the same hill. His travels take him from the land north, to the south, and back. So he has personal acquaintence with pre-destruction records, and post-destruction locations. Various cities are described as having been rebuilt where they had been. Zarahemla, for example. "The face of the land" being changed by the volcanic actions is best understood as relative to what we know about how volcanic actions change lands. Not a willy-nilly rearranging of the hemisphere to make things impossible for us in a way that did not seem to bother Mormon in his identifications. If such a thing had happened, it ought to have left evidence. While we do have evidence of volcanic action in Sorenson's Mesoamerican correlation, we have nothing of the kind elsewhere. And the land in question should be seen as limited in scope. It's not plastic surgery on the face, and not Picasso re-interpreting the concept of a face. It's uplift here and there, subsidence here and there, quaking here and their, lava and ash here and there, and buring in various places. Were it more than that, Mormon would have had a lot more trouble.

Why would Joseph Smith suddenly declare a location for Manti in Missouri? I'm not sure that he personally did (primary sources and first hand accounts are preferable), but if he did, to me this is obviously one of those situations that D&C 1 ought to prepare us for with respect to LDS leaders. "In as much as they erred, is shall be made manifest. Inasnmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed." What could have prompted him to say such a thing? After the adventure in trying to sell the Book of Mormon copyright in Toronto, David Whitmer reported that Joseph asked and was told, "Some revelations are of God, some of men, and some of the devil." I think in this case, we have some human speculation. If it were revelation, I think it ought to fit the Book of Mormon description. Consistency is important in these matters.

Nibley explained that "A wrong idea is better than no idea. At least it gives you something to shoot at." The trick is really how you resolve the tension between the initial idea and the additional information. D&C 1 again. "Inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed."

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Truth]

In that vein of the hill, it seems that unless there is specific knowledge of the location of the hill that is alleged to be Rama in Central America, that Cumorah is the proper one in New York. I think that the bodies of water referred to there are the Finger Lakes very nearby.

[Confidential Informant]

(Pursing this issue necessarily highlights the many reasons why the Grijalva is a good candidate for the Sidon.)

Just FYI, were you all aware of just how gorgeous the Grijalva River is?

It's breath taking!

[Confidential Informant]

Or this one:

Grijalva River

[BCSpace]

BC: 

All you need to know to be able to tell the difference is to see it printed in an official work of the Church of latest date.

The question was --Were they(JS and BY) wrong?

Seems like you are avoiding the question.

Since I was responding to a different poster to a subset of the original question, I don't see how you can logically or rationally arrive at that conclusion.

Is there any doctrine or teaching that is present in the BOM, and not found in the bible that is necesary for the salvation of mankind?

Yes. 2 Nephi 2 for example, in which we find the true purpose of the Fall.

If thats true, why do Mormons have such a hard time just saying JS and BY were wrong. Even you, the liberal mormon, phrase your response to avoid making such a clear statement.

Obviously not addressed to me, but I'll answer by saying BY's description of the trinity doctrine was wrong, the Church's stance on MX missile basing in the 80's was wrong (in my opinion). BRM's pre 1978 views on the status of blacks was obviously wrong also.

The problem is that antiMormons want us to admit that our prophets were or are wrong in areas that they were or are not wrong at all.

[Jaybear]

BC:

The problem is that antiMormons want us to admit that our prophets were or are wrong in areas that they were or are not wrong at all.

Actually, I think they are more interested in showing that your prophets are not divinely inspired.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Unfortunately for the critics. The Church readily admits that EVERYTHING that is said by a Prophet is not "Inspired".