Let Me Ask a Few Questions

[LifeOnaPlate]

Since he had the ear of the church and future generations as well as access to a pen and paper, he could have easily disabused people of the idea that he knew all about the Lamanites. By Zelph LOP!

Methinks you miss my point. No matter.

[Rommelator]

The Dude:

I think critics know, when they start their arguments, that they are tailored to knock Joseph Smith and a commonly accepted view of what JS was as a prophet and principal expert on Nephite civilization.

If this is the case, then the entire argument lies on a straw man.

If Rommelator and Charity want to discount what JS said about Zelph then I say more power to them.

I do not discount Zelph (or Joseph), I just think that it does not have the implications for a LGT that the critics seem to imply.

So start with Zelph, move on to the Garden of Eden, then the rock-in-hat story about translating the BoM, then the "first" vision, then the whole BoM historicity fable, and then before you know it you quit believing anything JS said. This is not such a bad place to be, I assure you.

In your dreams.

Phaedrus:

According to Joseph he

received his instruction from Moroni, Nephi, Alma, and Mormon directly. Joseph would tell his family very detailed stories about the ancient inhabitants of this continent. He did so according to his mother "as if he had spent his whole life among them".

After all these years of angelic tutelage he translates their story from the Plates of Lehi, then the same story again from the Plates of Nephi.

He discovers the bones of Zelph and not only knew he was a white lamanite but also knew that Zelph was "a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains."

He discovers a Nephite altar or Tower at tower hill near adam-ondi-ahman.

Non of which compromises a LGT.

Cinepro:

The problem is that Joseph Smith claimed that Moroni, Nephi and other angelic prophets were his sources of information.

On what? On Nephite civilization or on Geography?

So that's what Joseph believed Moroni had told him, as recounted in 1842.

If I were determined to believe the Jaredites and Lehites arrived to a land already populated by indigineous others and then mixed with and lived as a subset of existing populations in a small area of Central America, I'd be under my desk in the fetal position right now, rocking back and forth.

Melodramatic and histrionic as usual, cynicpro. Well done.

I guess I should clarify the OP. I am not trying to discount Joseph Smith or Zelph or Moroni or anything else. I actually find the Dude's and Cynicpro's sophomoric assertions somewhat presumptuous. What I am disputing is that there is only one way to interpret the historical data regarding Joseph Smith's views on geographical and that if I don't agree with that then I am going against the Prophet or trying to discount him or whatever. As I have pointed out, I don't think that the conclusions reached by the critics is necessitated by the data. I suppose it is my bad for not clarifying, but that is how I see it. Basically, the critic will state that Joseph Smith believed X about BoM geography and tout Zelph and whatever else as evidence. Then, when I disagree and think that it can be interpreted differently, I am said to be going against the Prophet or trying to discount him, etc.

However, my views about doctrinally revealed vs. personal opinion stands. Even if the critics are right about Joseph Smith's views on BoM geography, and I don't believe that they are, am I under obligation to accept it if it is not revealed doctrine?

Oh, and BTW cynicpro, you can drop the insipid theatrics about the nature of doctrine. It really is not impressive.

[cinepro]

However, my views about doctrinally revealed vs. personal opinion stands. Even if the critics are right about Joseph Smith's views on BoM geography, and I don't believe that they are, am I under obligation to accept it if it is not revealed doctrine?

Why are you trying to peddle Joseph Smith's hemispheric/isolated views of Book of Mormon geography as being some invention of the "critics"? As far as I can tell, this idea has been promoted by Joseph Fielding Smith, CES instructors, and Rodney Meldrum to great success over the past decades.

Don't hate the messenger.

In this very thread I have shared what appear to clear and reputable statements from the Prophet Joseph Smith regarding the scope and isolated nature of Book of Mormon events. Whether you choose to believe them or reject them is up to you. But if you choose to ignore them, the decent thing to do is to stop responding to this thread, in which case you can pretend you never saw the letter and maintain your intellectual honesty. Once you try to avoid the issue by resorting to name calling, the true nature (and depth) of your problems are laid bare.

Oh, and BTW cynicpro, you can drop the insipid theatrics about the nature of doctrine. It really is not impressive.

Yes, but even unimpressive insipid theatrics can still be true.

[ryanelwood]

Let me preface my words by repeating something Joseph Smith once said:

"A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as one."

I have encountered several people on this board and elsewhere who, when discussing Book of Mormon geography, will generally say something like this:

"Well, Joseph Smith thought such and such about Book of Mormon geography. You are contradicting your Prophet!"

Now, let me ask a few questions:

1. Why am I under obligation to accept Joseph Smith's views (or Brigham Young's or Orson Pratt's, etc) on Book of Mormon geography if he did not present it as revealed doctrine?

2. Why am I under obligation to think that somehow Joseph Smith's views on Book of Mormon geography are somehow more authoritative than anyone else's if he did not present it as revealed doctrine?

3. Why does it matter if my views are different from Joseph Smith's views on Book of Mormon geography if he did not present his views as revealed doctrine?

(Feel free to substitute Joseph Smith's name with any other name of any General Authority, Church President, etc.)

To me it seems that this ploy is nothing more than a pharisaic trap to try and catch me in a contradiction.

So, what do you all think?

Well this was Joseph's view,he told John Wentworth that the angel told him, "I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country, and shown who they were, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people was made known unto me." So this is what Joseph said was revealed to him, was he wrong or lying about what was revealed to him? He was shown "the" aboriginal inhabitants of "this," the United States. He doesn't say the "principle ancestors" or that they were only "among" the ancient inhabitants, the Book of Mormon people were THE ancient inhabitants. But I guess he was only presenting his "opinion" about what the angel showed him and he may not have been writing as a prophet when he wrote the letter (what is funny is that Joseph came up with the excuse about failed revelations to explain away his own failed revelation, and people still swallow it hook, line, and sinker). Remember also the "revealed" missions to the Lamanites and zion on the borders of the Lamanites. The revelations say the Lamanites, not Native americans that may have some Lamanite blood, nor were these Lamanites in Central America. Of course perhaps this was only Joseph's opinion, or Gods opinion since these are revelations. Or perhaps we should adopt the other excuse that confused these early Mormons, that Lamanite was only a "title" for all Native Americans. Since Joseph is the one that produced the Book of Mormon, I do take his opinion about where the events were supposed to take place over John Sorenson who had nothing to do with the books production.

edit: I apologize for my post, looks like Cinpero had already stolen my thunder. Good job Cinpero.

[The Dude]

Rommelator:

Lets go back to the opening post.

Now, let me ask a few questions:

1. Why am I under obligation to accept Joseph Smith's views (or Brigham Young's or Orson Pratt's, etc) on Book of Mormon geography if he did not present it as revealed doctrine?

2. Why am I under obligation to think that somehow Joseph Smith's views on Book of Mormon geography are somehow more authoritative than anyone else's if he did not present it as revealed doctrine?

3. Why does it matter if my views are different from Joseph Smith's views on Book of Mormon geography if he did not present his views as revealed doctrine?

What are Joseph Smiths' views on Book of Mormon geography?

[LifeOnaPlate]

What are Joseph Smiths' views on Book of Mormon geography?

During what timeframe?

[The Dude]

During what timeframe?

That as well. I want to know what Romm is referring to in his OP. Otherwise how do we know what he's talking about?

[cinepro]

edit: I apologize for my post, looks like Cinpero had already stolen my thunder. Good job Cinpero.

Mwahaha. I eat thunder for breakfast. With cream cheese and poppy seeds.

[cinepro]

During what timeframe?

The Wentworth letter was written in 1842. So we know that as of 1842, Joseph believed there wasn't any one here when the Jaredites showed up, and that it was just the Jaredites and Lehites who were here until after BoM times (which would lend credence to OSC's theory that the Mulekites made up their migration story).

[LifeOnaPlate]

How much of that letter was based on Pratt's earlier tract?

[cinepro]

How much of that letter was based on Pratt's earlier tract?

If you're implying that someone, even Joseph Smith, would release something under his name that didn't accurately reflect his thoughts and life experiences, even to the point that it isn't a reliable account of what actually happened, then that opens a whole new can of worms.

Especially for the Book of Mormon witnesses.

[Whiskeypete]

Considering that I think that these statements are directed towards me, I guess I'll chime in.

Actually, they were supposed to be rather tongue in cheek.

If there was any specific direction, my thoughts were actually focused on a brother-in-law who inisists on the Hemispheric model, because his mission president said so; and on my father-in-law, who insists on single-Cumorah model (ie, the battle was in Upstate New York) because of the vision of the records inside the cave in the hill.

[ryanelwood]

How much of that letter was based on Pratt's earlier tract?

Hi LifeOnaPlate, I can see what you are saying, the Wentworth letter does appear to have been influenced to some point by Pratt's pamphlet. But, as far as the Moroni visit goes, only Joseph would know the particulars about it, Pratt was not there. So I would think if Pratt had not accurately told about Joseph's experience, then Joseph had the opportunity to set the record straight. I think the letter makes it clear that what Moroni purportedly showed Joseph was the history of THE ancient inhabitants, not just a small group surrounded by Asians. That view is consistent with Joseph's revelations to conduct missions to the Indians to tell them about their ancient ancestors. It is also consistent with the land of Zion being on the border of the Lamanites in Missouri. This border was in North America where the Lamanites lived, not in Central America, although I presume Joseph thought that central and south American natives were Lamanites as well.

[cdowis]

I disagree. If Rommelator and Charity want to discount what JS said about Zelph then I say more power to them.

The Zelph statement does not invalidate the LGT, as discussed previously. However, if you chose to interpret it in that manner, you are free to do so, but we are under no obligation to do so.

We have to start discounting JS somewhere or we would be stuck in the backward past. So start with Zelph, move on to the Garden of Eden, then the rock-in-hat story about translating the BoM, then the "first" vision, then the whole BoM historicity fable, and then before you know it you quit believing anything JS said. This is not such a bad place to be, I assure you.

I will be happy to compare JS's story to quantum mechanics "nonsense" anyday. And if you examine QM, and what it teaches, you may have to quit believing science altogether.

[The Dude]

The Zelph statement does not invalidate the LGT, as discussed previously.

Hi cdowis. I didn't say the Zelph statement invalidates the LGT. As a matter of fact, I think Anijen has offered one good reconciliation, plus there may be others. Maybe it's not a problem after all. I'm only saying that if you want to disbelieve something Joseph Smith said or wrote (like LoaP seems to be doing with the Wentworth Letter) then I'm not one of those critics who is going to try and box you into a standard Chapel-ready set of LDS beliefs. Please, disbelieve Joseph Smith's statements and letters. Please do.

I will be happy to compare JS's story to quantum mechanics "nonsense" anyday.

Sort of off topic though, don't ya' think?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

btw, just saw this on another board. hilarious, imo:

Yeah Becuase Dan is so stupid he just doesnt get it. Lol THat is a great shot.