How does the Local Geographic Theory

[Confidential Informant]

C.I. wrote:

In short, the text supports the LGM. The critics know this. Thus, they pull out the quotes from past Church leaders and then expect Mormons to fall all over themselves acting like fundamentalists giving creedence to those quotes.

Funny, I was thinking the exact opposite.

You were thinking the exact opposite of what?

If you think I'm wrong then you should read Metcalfe "Re-imaging Lamanite Identify" or Murphy's challenge to the LGT. They both short of quotes from the B of M but very long on quotes from past leaders.

We aren't fundamentilist. Stop expecting us to act like it.

C.I.

[Who Knows]

The exact opposite of what you wrote.

I am not basing my criticism of the LGT on past quotes. I'm basing it on my own reading of the BOM. The passed quotes only support the fact that prophets in the past have read it the same way as I have.

You read it differently. I just find it ironic that now science basically takes the hemospheric theory out of the equation as well.

[Confidential Informant]

I just find it ironic that now science basically takes the hemospheric theory out of the equation as well.

Bogus. The text itself did away with the Hemispheric model, long before any "science" came around.

This has been argued and established on this list long before now. There was an article in the JBMS that shows the history of the LGM.

C.I.

[Who Knows]

I just find it ironic that now science basically takes the hemospheric theory out of the equation as well.

Bogus. The text itself did away with the Hemispheric model, long before any "science" came around.

This has been argued and established on this list long before now. There was an article in the JBMS that shows the history of the LGM.

C.I.

If it did away with it so long ago, how were prophets and apostles fooled? How have I been fooled? We're all reading the same text.

I don't think you can say it was done away with by the text. At best, the text is ambiguous, and up to interpretation. Again, I just find it ironic that that interpretation is changing with the scientific discoveries.

[Confidential Informant]

I just find it ironic that now science basically takes the hemospheric theory out of the equation as well.

Bogus. The text itself did away with the Hemispheric model, long before any "science" came around.

This has been argued and established on this list long before now. There was an article in the JBMS that shows the history of the LGM.

C.I.

If it did away with it so long ago, how were prophets and apostles fooled? How have I been fooled? We're all reading the same text.

I don't think you can say it was done away with by the text. At best, the text is ambiguous, and up to interpretation. Again, I just find it ironic that that interpretation is changing with the scientific discoveries.

Believe what you want. The facts don't bear you out.

Limited Geography has been discussed for over a century.

And no one was "fooled" they 1) made certain ill-founded assumptions and 2) Did not read the text closely and test what it says.

Also, try readings Sorenson's "Mormons Map" which shows exactly how unambiguous the text is.

C.I.

[thesometimesaint]

who knows:

I think to a large extent the early Prophets were just as inclined to accept folk wisdom as anybody else, until the Lord decreed otherwise.

To my knowledge neither LGT nor the Hemispheric model has been presented to and accepted by the Church. My personal reading of the Book of Mormon over the years lends me to lean towards the LGT. Now that FARMS has published a reasonable explanation. It lends even more credence to my prior reasoning.

I would agree to the rest of your assumptions.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Oh it has, and how quick the saints forget!!

President Marion G. Romney

Second Counselor in the First Presidency

Marion G. Romney,

[Rollo Tomasi]

What I don't see is a "god has shown me that the Hill Cumorah is located in (add location)."

Why? Because no such authoritative proclimation exists. All you've shown is that prior assumptions get carried on.

If Joseph's info about Zelph came via "vision" (as witnesses recorded), then Joseph's use of "Cumorah" as the eastern reference point to describe the scope of Zelph's (or Onandagus's) fame across North America, sounds like it came from God. And D&C 128:20 (although just an "epistle" from Joseph but still part of the canon) doesn't sound like an "assumption" to me.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat ... it appears that the negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feeling to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace." ... Race Problems-As They Affect The Church, an address delivered by Apostle Mark E. Petersen at Brigham Young University, August 27, 1954)

I hear ice cracking.

It appears you have confused Marion G. Romney with Mark E. Petersen.

[Paul Osborne]

It appears you have confused Marion G. Romney with Mark E. Petersen.

I noticed that too. I just didn't say anything.

Paul O

[Rollo Tomasi]

And the B of M specificly states that he did not bury the plates in that hill, rather he buried all the other records there but reserved those plates.

The BofM does NOT say whether Moroni did or did not bury the plates in the BofM Cumorah/Ramah; the plates only weren't buried at the same time as the other records stashed away by Mormon. And LDS history clearly supports that Moroni ended up burying the plates in the BofM Cumorah/Ramah.

In short, the text supports the LGM.

NO, the text does not support the LGT in many respects. An excellent article that explains the many problems between the text and the LGT can be read in Earl M. Wunderli, "Critique of a Limited Geography of Book of Mormon Events," Dialogue, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 161-97 (Fall 2002).

[Paul Osborne]

Here's the further irony -- this very talk by Marion Romney is quoted in the current CES Student Manual for Religion 121 & 122 (Book of Mormon) on page 136. 

Do you know if the latest addition of the Articles of Faith stills endorses the belief that Cumorah was in New York?

Paul O

=============

Apostle James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith , chapter 14

"The hill, which was known by one division of the ancient peoples as Cumorah, by another as Ramah, is situated near Palmyra in the State of New York

[Rollo Tomasi]

The text itself did away with the Hemispheric model, long before any "science" came around.

Hardly. Given the hemispheric scope of prophecies and revelations concerning the BofM "promised land" (including by Jesus Himself during his visit) throughout the text, it is clearly a hemispheric model. 175 years worth of divine messengers, prophets, apostles, etc., were not wrong when they taught this.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Do you know if the latest addition of the Articles of Faith stills endorses the belief that Cumorah was in New York?

I don't have the source available, but I will try to find it and let you know.

[thesometimesaint]

RT:

The Hemospheric Model make NO SENSE. The Book of Mormon would be FALSE.

Whether you are talking about a LGT of the Finger Lakes of New York region. Which I don't believe for a number of reasons. Or the LGT of Central America. It is still a LGT.

[juliann]

If Joseph's info about Zelph came via "vision" (as witnesses recorded), then Joseph's use of "Cumorah" as the eastern reference point to describe the scope of Zelph's (or Onandagus's) fame across North America, sounds like it came from God. And D&C 128:20 (although just an "epistle" from Joseph but still part of the canon) doesn't sound like an "assumption" to me.

Typical Rollo....leave out all pertinent info and throw in "witnesses" as if it is all decided. Don't mention that one of the very few writings from JS himself, a letter to Emma, on the very day of this event says nothing of Zelph...nor does JS ever use that name.

Rollo is a master at this hide and seek game...no matter how many times he gets his head handed to him because he purposefully omits critical information....he just waits for a new day to start up with the same junk as if nothing had ever happened.

Reader beware.

[juliann]

The text itself did away with the Hemispheric model, long before any "science" came around.

Hardly. Given the hemispheric scope of prophecies and revelations concerning the BofM "promised land" (including by Jesus Himself during his visit) throughout the text, it is clearly a hemispheric model. 175 years worth of divine messengers, prophets, apostles, etc., were not wrong when they taught this.

ZZZZzzzzzz Rollo will forever be enraged because Mormons decided not to go the way of the Amish. What year would you like us to go back to, Rollo? Can you pick one? 175 years? Should we adopt the dress style and technology of the day as well? What would satisfy you, Rollo? Go find a nice fundamentalist group who will welcome your inflexible and ultra conservative demands.

[GDTeacher]

RT:

The Hemospheric Model make NO SENSE. The Book of Mormon would be FALSE.

Whether you are talking about a LGT of the Finger Lakes of New York region. Which I don't believe for a number of reasons. Or the LGT of Central America. It is still a LGT.

Are you implying that our prophets and leaders have been nonsensical? Or is it that most members have been nonsensical in their interpretation of what we have been taught?

[Brant Gardner]

GDTeacher:

Are you implying that our prophets and leaders have been nonsensical? Or is it that most members have been nonsensical in their interpretation of what we have been taught?

Are you suggesting that a prophet, leader, or lay person could not have believed something that was later discovered to be incorrect? On general principles I find that difficult to accept since history goes against it.

Are you suggesting that a prophet, leader, or lay person ought to have an completely accurate view of Book of Mormon geogrpahy even if they might not be perfectly correct on other things? If so, why that particular subject as opposed to, say germ theory or something else that might be important?

[GDTeacher]

The text itself did away with the Hemispheric model, long before any "science" came around.

Hardly. Given the hemispheric scope of prophecies and revelations concerning the BofM "promised land" (including by Jesus Himself during his visit) throughout the text, it is clearly a hemispheric model. 175 years worth of divine messengers, prophets, apostles, etc., were not wrong when they taught this.

ZZZZzzzzzz Rollo will forever be enraged because Mormons decided not to go the way of the Amish. What year would you like us to go back to, Rollo? Can you pick one? 175 years? Should we adopt the dress style and technology of the day as well? What would satisfy you, Rollo? Go find a nice fundamentalist group who will welcome your inflexible and ultra conservative demands.

It would seem that when a vast majority of church members understand and embrace the LGT that we can sweep many of these issues under the rug. For now, most members are unaware of LGT and understand the hemispheric model to be correct.

To use your Amish paradigm, perhaps we are looking for the new order LDS to arise that more readily accepts advances in scholarship. We embraced advances up through the late 1800's, but then rejected them when those advances started conflicting with foundational beliefs early in the 20th century (e.g. some of the issues that B.H. Roberts was trying to answer). Like you, I'm hopeful that we can look forward to accepting and embracing advancing scholarship in our line upon line development and growth.

[juliann]

Are you implying that our prophets and leaders have been nonsensical? Or is it that most members have been nonsensical in their interpretation of what we have been taught?

Framing a question like that forces any topic (unless you are Amish) into a discussion of "false prophet". Those like Rollo know this which is why they inevitably end up with "but your leaders saaaiiiiddd....". Where do we throw out God if we set up a situation in which no further knowledge can be entertained? We would certainly have to throw out the Bible...they were downright primitive. Heavens held up by pillars? Come on. So what is our choice? We reject all modern knowledge and go back to that...or we move on. The problem with not allowing a religion to move on is that it puts you in league with fundamentalists who demand an inerrant reading of scripture and a rejection of anything extra-canonical. Mormon theology is by definition not even conservative let alone fundamentalistic.

So if you are going to set up these either/or propositions you really are saying more about your own worldview. As the 1978 revelation showed, Mormons will turn on a dime and throw out a century's worth of sermons without blinking.

[Rollo Tomasi]

The Hemospheric Model make NO SENSE. The Book of Mormon would be FALSE.

Whether you are talking about a LGT of the Finger Lakes of New York region. Which I don't believe for a number of reasons. Or the LGT of Central America. It is still a LGT.

Don't blame me for these problems. I neither wrote the book nor received divine instruction about it. Take it up with those who did.

[GDTeacher]

GDTeacher:

Are you implying that our prophets and leaders have been nonsensical? Or is it that most members have been nonsensical in their interpretation of what we have been taught?

Are you suggesting that a prophet, leader, or lay person could not have believed something that was later discovered to be incorrect? On general principles I find that difficult to accept since history goes against it.

Are you suggesting that a prophet, leader, or lay person ought to have an completely accurate view of Book of Mormon geogrpahy even if they might not be perfectly correct on other things? If so, why that particular subject as opposed to, say germ theory or something else that might be important?

I'm not clear exactly what you are asking me or if you are asking me. Thesometimesaint said that the hemispheric model made NO SENSE. Since many of our leaders have made statements that support the hemispheric theory, I was asking if thesometimesaint thought that the prophets have been nonsensical, or if it was the individual members' interpretation that was nonsensical.

It seems very clear to me that prophets can make mistakes, because they are man. They have made them before and they will make them again. I presume that President Hinckley may possibly also be teaching us things that are incorrect. I am not saying that that is a truth, but that it is a possibility.

My question really revolved around whether or not thesometimesaint thought that our previous leaders have been nonsensical. That is all, no more, no less. I try to make my thoughts and questions very straight forward without hidden agenda.

[juliann]

It would seem that when a vast majority of church members understand and embrace the LGT that we can sweep many of these issues under the rug. For now, most members are unaware of LGT and understand the hemispheric model to be correct.

Run an experiment. Ask at least 10 active and believing Mormons what they think about it. You will probably have to explain the options to most of them and why it matters. It takes about 2 to 3 minutes at most. Then ask them if the LGT troubles them. You will be hard pressed to find one member who will not say something along the lines of "hmmm, never thought about it...yeah, that makes sense." I talked to more than that...I only found one person who was unwilling to consider a LGT.

To use your Amish paradigm, perhaps we are looking for the new order LDS to arise that more readily accepts advances in scholarship. 

I don't see this as an advance in "scholarship". Scholarship will help us analyze the text but we have always had this in front of our faces, although it was not the prevalent viewpoint. There is, for instance, a Sunday school manual in the 1930s that gave a LGT as a possibility. Now that I have had my eyes opened to this...I cannot see it any other way. I view this as part of our condemnation for not taking the BOM seriously...that is a warning in the D&C so I am particularly suspicious when those who have never wished us well try to tell us we need to return to another century to meet their approval.

Like you, I'm hopeful that we can look forward to accepting and embracing advancing scholarship in our line upon line development and growth.

We not only will...it is happening at an accelerated rate. The recent partnering of the Library of Congress and BYU is just one example. It is not going over well with our anti friends who are extremely uncomfortable with shades of grey in their world.

[GDTeacher]

Are you implying that our prophets and leaders have been nonsensical?  Or is it that most members have been nonsensical in their interpretation of what we have been taught?

Framing a question like that forces any topic (unless you are Amish) into a discussion of "false prophet". Those like Rollo know this which is why they inevitably end up with "but your leaders saaaiiiiddd....". Where do we throw out God if we set up a situation in which no further knowledge can be entertained? We would certainly have to throw out the Bible...they were downright primitive. Heavens held up by pillars? Come on. So what is our choice? We reject all modern knowledge and go back to that...or we move on. The problem with not allowing a religion to move on is that it puts you in league with fundamentalists who demand an inerrant reading of scripture and a rejection of anything extra-canonical. Mormon theology is by definition not even conservative let alone fundamentalistic.

So if you are going to set up these either/or propositions you really are saying more about your own worldview. As the 1978 revelation showed, Mormons will turn on a dime and throw out a century's worth of sermons without blinking.

My apologies, my intent was not to anywhere near to leading a discussion of a false prophet. That was nowhere in my mind.

I thought my question was pretty straight forward, without any hidden agenda.

I was suprised by thesometimesaint saying that the hemispheric model mad NO SENSE. I think the fact that it did make sense is precisely why so so many people have believed it for so long. I think that it did make sense at one point in time. To say that it makes no sense seems to be pretty harsh to me. That statement discredits the thinking of many church members, leaders, and scholars for a long period of time. I could understand that given that we have new information that it makes less sense than it did previously, but to say that it makes NO SENSE is to discredit all the work and study and faith of those who went before us. That was the sole point of my question.