Limited Geography Theories

[thesometimesaint]

RoseMadder:

Given the time lag from the last Nephite battle to burying the plates is plenty of time(20 years) to travel from Mesoamerica to upstate New York.

[thesometimesaint]

RoseMadder:

Given the time lag from the last Nephite battle to burying the plates is plenty of time(20 years) to travel from Mesoamerica to upstate New York.

[RoseMadder]

RoseMadder:

Given the time lag from the last Nephite battle to burying the plates is plenty of time(20 years) to travel from Mesoamerica to upstate New York.

There was a twenty year lag between the last Nephite battle and the burying of the plates in Cumorah? I wasn't taught that.

Apparently, I wasn't the only one who wasn't taught that.

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding the famous Watson letter,

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Statements/Twentieth_century/First_Presidency_Letter

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[RoseMadder]

RoseMadder:

Given the time lag from the last Nephite battle to burying the plates is plenty of time(20 years) to travel from Mesoamerica to upstate New York.

Additionally, would one need to assume that Moroni traveled for twenty years followed by a band of Lamanites who were out to kill him? Those were some persistent fellas! Or, was Moroni not fearful for his life at all but rather traveled to New York simply because he wanted to?

Meh. Neither of those scenarios make sense to me, but that's no matter as long as what you believe makes sense to you, thesometimessaint. Have a good one, Sir or Madam!

[ELF1024]

Regarding the famous Watson letter,

http://en.fairmormon...esidency_Letter

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.

That falls in line with my understanding.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Additionally, would one need to assume that Moroni traveled for twenty years followed by a band of Lamanites who were out to kill him? Those were some persistent fellas! Or, was Moroni not fearful for his life at all but rather traveled to New York simply because he wanted to?

Meh. Neither of those scenarios make sense to me, but that's no matter as long as what you believe makes sense to you, thesometimessaint. Have a good one, Sir or Madam!

It is important to note what a Lamanite was during Moroni's time. A lamanite did not equal a blood descendant of Lehi.

[RoseMadder]

Regarding the famous Watson letter,

http://en.fairmormon...esidency_Letter

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Thank you, Mr. Christensen.

To my mind, a letter on Office of the First Presidency letterhead and signed by the Secretary of the First Presidency holds more weight than a fax sent to someone at FARMS, but I understand if you view things differently.

[Whiskeypete]

It isn't that I don't believe that Book of Mormon events occurred in Mesoamerica. Rather, I take literally the many statements of the Brethren that the Lehites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians, and I believe that the New York Cumorah is old Cumorah/Ramah. Further, I believe the statements made about the final battles of extermination occurring around Cumorah/Cumorah/Ramah and not someplace else.

Along those lines, I think:

1. Attempts to narrow Book of Mormon events, including the Hill Cumorah, to a small area in Mesoamerica is often a matter of faithlessness. See the post just above this one where a poster asks about the absence of DNA evidence. That one little post made my entire case. If we don't accept a very limited LGT model, then what explanation we have for the absence of DNA?

Usually people take umbrage at this statement, as if I am questioning their faith or their faithfulness. I don't. I say nothing about an individual persons' faith or faithfulness. I believe that the thinking of the LGT and faithless go hand in hand; see Thomas Stuart Ferguson. Signing on to the LGT theory as a good member of the Church is like falling for Landmark; it doesn't mean that a person is faithless but they are headed down a bad road.

So, even though I believe that:

• Lehi and his family lived in Jerusalem
  
• Nephi and his brothers built a boat
  
• They came in the boat to the Americas
  
• Their descendants called themselves Nephites and Lamanites
  
• After his Crucifixion and Resurrection, Jesus Christ appeared to those gathered at the temple in Bountiful
  
• 350 years later, some of their descendants had a large battle.
  
• The battle was near a hill that those who called themselves Nephites named the Hill Cumorah
  
• All of those who called themselves Nephites were destroyed in the battle
  
• Records of the Nephites were abridged by the general/prophet named Mormon
  
• The record he wrote contained the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ
  
• Mormon gave the abridgment to his son named Moroni and buried the original documents in the Hill Cumorah
  
• Moroni finished the record, and buried the record in a hill in what is now western New York
  
• In the 1820s, the resurrected Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith and directed him to the record
  
• Joseph Smith translated the record by the gift and power of God, and published it as the Book of Mormon.

I am heading down a bad road because I don't believe that the hill where Mormon buried the originals is the same hill where Moroni buried the abridgment?

5. Yes, an article by Sorenson was published in the Ensign. But, as has been pointed out on this Board by me and others, he was asked to remove from his articles his conclusions about the Hill Cumorah. As published in the Ensign, to me that article is just harmless speculation and not contrary to the teachings of the Brethren. It isn't speculation that would really interest me, however.

Were Sorenson's conclusions in his books (and the LGT) contrary to the teachings of "the Brethren?" I think you are mistaking "the Brethren" as simply a plural for Brother. Remember, for a decision to be made by "the Brethren", ie the Quorums of leadership in the Church that establish doctrine, it has to be unanimous. Although a lot of Brothers in leadership positions have given opinions about BoM geography, unless I am mistaken, the teachings of The Brethren is that we don't know the specifics of Book of Mormon geography.

7. I subscribe to Sevenbak's view that there can be and has been plenty of evidence of armaments and battlements in North America in the Ohio Valley area, and that we can't positively limit our thinking to late pre-Columbian activity. There has been extensive writing about the Mounds, their dating and contents.

There is plenty of evidence of armaments and battlements around Troy and Greece, but I don't think they are proof that the Book of Mormon happened there. Native Americans may have had battles in the Ohio Valley, but that doesn't mean that they were the people who in the Book of Mormon were called Nephites or Lamanites

9. I am roundly condemned for taking the same approach as the anti-Mormon "pot-stirrers" or as the nasty Meldrumites. I have never read a single Meldrum/Porter publication. But, my position remains thus: If I were to spend 15 minutes in a sacrament meeting with my stake president in attendance, and I quoted from the Brethren about the Hill Cumorah and then concluded my talk with the opinion that Cumorah/Cumorah/Ramah is a sacred site bathed in Nephite blood and the foundation for the modern church, I'd receive an atta-boy and a pat on the back by the stake president. If I read from Sorenson adherents and argued that the Hill Cumorah was somewhere else and the Lehites are not the ancestors of the modern Indians, I would be counseled to be quiet.

I think it depends on how you did it. If your presented either view with an explicit statement that those who believed in the other view were heading down a wrong path regarding their faithfulness, I would also counsel you to be quiet. The problem is that those who believe in a LGT don't doubt the faithfulness or direction of those who believe in a hemispheric geographic. I personally think that many people let their pre-conceived ideas about what they think the text says get in the way of what the text actually says. I also think that they set a false dichotomy:" Either believe in the way my Sunday School teacher taught me the Book of Mormon 35 years ago or you are losing your testimony." "I don't believe in Evolution, I believe in the Bible", etc. But I don't doubt their faith or testimony in the Gospel

10. I think that the personal nastiness that has been directed my way on this board, LoaP calling me a "jerk" and Goble using cuss words (with asterisks, of course) is an implicit proof that the devil is on their side. [That's a joke; I couldn't resist.] I don't think this discussion merits nastiness but forgive me if I don't roll over.

I agree that nastiness is inappropriate, and I hope that my comments aren't being interpreted that way.

11. I find it disingenuous that some, but not all, LGT adherents pretend as if there is no support in the Church for a long-standing set of teachings and a custom for Cumorah/Cumorah/Ramah and the proximity thereto for the final battles. That teaching is so common, so pervasive, that I just won't even attempt to provide proof; it is axiomatic.

I think it is pretty clear that MOST members of the Church believed in a Hemispheric Geography theory or Single Cumorah theory. I think that most still do. I also think that most of them have never asked themselves the types of questions that LGT adherents ask themselves.

And those questions AREN'T along the lines of "Do I really believe in the Book of Mormon?" That question was answered years ago when I put Moroni's promise to the test. The questions that LGT adherents ask themselves is, are there another explanations, assuming that the Book of Mormon is true, that would help explain some of the seeming inconsistencies between the text and current understandings of Ancient American history. It could be that our understanding of Biology, Archeology, etc is wrong, it could also be that we are making assumptions about the text that aren't really there.

[RoseMadder]

It is important to note what a Lamanite was during Moroni's time. A lamanite did not equal a blood descendant of Lehi.

Then the pamphlet published by the church which I quoted earlier in the thread is incorrect?

I was able to help clean out my grandmother's home after she unfortunately had to be placed in a nursing facility last year. Among her abundant, dusty piles of books and papers, I found dozens upon dozens of old church publications. It has been interesting looking thorough them.

The back cover of a pamphlet published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in November of 1974 says the following: "The Book of Mormon, written by ancient American prophets, telling of God's dealings with the earliest American nations and shedding light on who these people were and where they went, has now been published in millions of copies and translated into thirty-four different languages, thus fulfilling the Bible prophecy that in the last days an angel would return to earth '...having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.'"

The final page of the pamphlet states: "Commanded by the Lord to gather the sacred records of ancient America, the prophet Mormon abridged many larger records onto thin sheets of gold. He compiled these inspired writings into one volume containing several thousand years of religious history telling of the first colonizers in the Americas and how God led them here from the Holy Land. Fourteen centuries later this important record was revealed to the prophet Joseph Smith who translated it by the gift and power of God and published it as The Book of Mormon."

The Book of Mormon tells of the first colonizers of the Americas. The Book of Mormon peoples were the earliest American nations.

Is the pamphlet published by the church incorrect?

[thesometimesaint]

RoseMadder:

I don't believe that a band of Lamanites spent 20 years personally following Moroni. More like if they found him he would be killed. Even today you can go to any US Post Office and see the FBI "Most Wanted" posters. Some are VERY old, and our means of communication are MUCH better than they were some 1600 years ago.

[Pahoran]

Call For References that I have contradicted myself, either four or any other number of times, in this thread.

Neither of us, Pahoran, are authorities. I am asking for clarity. You don't like me treating as you treat me. Got it. Tough. Be polite and get it in return. I will begin now, right now. Let's see how it goes.

That's nice, or something. But it does not answer my CFR.

Conclusion: when you asserted that I had contradicted myself four times, you were simply making it up.

Got it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[thesometimesaint]

RoseMadder:

Pamphlets no matter how well intended do not constitute the doctrine of the Church.

[Pahoran]

Thank you, Mr. Christensen.

To my mind, a letter on Office of the First Presidency letterhead and signed by the Secretary of the First Presidency holds more weight than a fax sent to someone at FARMS, but I understand if you view things differently.

That is a false dichotomy.

The letter that was transmitted by fax was written by the same person, holding the same office, as the letter by which you have tried to conjure.

And the later Watson letter supersedes -- i.e. replaces and renders obsolete -- the earlier Watson letter.

Question: Have I told you anything you didn't already know?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Then the pamphlet published by the church which I quoted earlier in the thread is incorrect?

I see absoultly nothing in that pamphlet that address the point I made.

The text of the BoM is what I am going off of. At the beginning of the BoM lamanite meant descandant of Laman and Lemuel. Latter on we learn that a Lamanite is any one who does not beleive in God. THen we learn that some lamanites were acutally Nephites but joined themselves with the Lamanites. IOW it was more of a political term then a literal term.

[ELF1024]

It is my belief that the Book of Mormon is a historical record. As it is a historical record, I believe there will be physical evidence of the Lehites.

AT THIS TIME, the best evidence I've seen is from the LGT crowd. IF at some point there comes better evidence for a HGT, then I will embrace it. The setting for the Book of Mormon does not cause me to question my testimony. My testimony of the Gospel does not swing on if there is one Cumorah or two. It doesn't matter if Nephi walked the plains South Dakota, hunted the Hills of Guatemala, or found pleasure in the streams of the Adirondacks.

The Book of Mormon is true regardless of where it took place.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That is a false dichotomy.

The letter that was transmitted by fax was written by the same person, holding the same office, as the letter by which you have tried to conjure.

And the later Watson letter supersedes -- i.e. replaces and renders obsolete -- the earlier Watson letter.

Question: Have I told you anything you didn't already know?

Regards,

Pahoran

I saw the same thing. I don't get it.

[RoseMadder]

That is a false dichotomy.

The letter that was transmitted by fax was written by the same person, holding the same office, as the letter by which you have tried to conjure.

And the later Watson letter supersedes -- i.e. replaces and renders obsolete -- the earlier Watson letter.

Question: Have I told you anything you didn't already know?

Regards,

Pahoran

Actually, yes you did.

I clicked on the links to a cover letter sent by someone named "Brent" and on an unsigned fax sent by Carla Ogden.

I didn't see any correspondence from Mr. Watson other than the letter I posted earlier in the thread.

I still maintain that a signed letter on letterhead from Mr. Watson himself holds more weight than an unsigned fax sent by Carla Ogden.

The letter sent and signed by Mr. Watson sends regards from the Brethren, who commend Bro. Sparks for his gospel study. I'm assuming the Brethren were aware of the inquiry and of the answer sent by Mr. Watson and actually did commend Mr. Sparks for his study. A fax from Carla Ogden doesn't convince me otherwise. If it convinces others, then so be it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually, yes you did.

I clicked on the links to a cover letter sent by someone named "Brent" and on an unsigned fax sent by Carla Ogden.

I didn't see any correspondence from Mr. Watson other than the letter I posted earlier in the thread.

I still maintain that a signed letter on letterhead from Mr. Watson himself holds more weight than an unsigned fax sent by Carla Ogden.

The letter sent and signed by Mr. Watson sends regards from the Brethren, who commend Bro. Sparks for his gospel study. I'm assuming the Brethren were aware of the inquiry and of the answer sent by Mr. Watson and actually did commend Mr. Sparks for his study. A fax from Carla Ogden doesn't convince me otherwise. If it convinces others, then so be it.

On April 23, 1993, F. Michael Watson arranged for a clarification letter after a discussion with a FARMS staffer. The text is similar and consistent with what was published in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism the previous year:

The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.[1]

Since the text of this letter was published in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, some critics have charged the FARMS authors with either manipulating the Church into sending the letter, or forging the letter text altogether.

Matt Roper of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship located a faxed copy of the same statement sent from the Office of the First Presidency, along with its cover page, and sent FAIR a copy with permission to post it. The 1993 fax was sent by Senior Executive Secretary for the Office of the First Presidency, Carla Ogden, to Brent Hall of FARMS. (Sister Ogden continues to serve in this position as of 2009). The text of the fax matches exactly the text reported to have been in the response by Watson as described in the FARMS Review. The cover letter reads as follows:

So do you think the FARMS just made up the letter that was sent to them in 1993 by Bro Watson?

[Pahoran]

The facts are this.

(1) President Cannon more than 120 years ago counselled against trying for a definitive geography. Rather the BoM, he believed, should be evaluated in terms of doctrine and history. Now we see two groups going at it tongs and hammer.

This is not a "fact" at all, but a tendentious misinterpretation. Your careful excerpt from President Cannon left off this part:

Of course, there can be no harm result from the study of the geography of this continent at the time it was settled by the Nephites, drawing all the information possible from the record which has been translated for our benefit. But beyond this we do not think it necessary, at the present time, to go.

Gee, I wonder why...?

Perhaps it was because his counsel opened the door -- nice and wide -- to anyone who wanted to engage in a serious study of BofM geography. The only caveat that he applied is that geographical questions are not doctrinal in nature.

Which ought to give pause to those who insist that anyone who disagrees with them about such questions is in some way "weak in the faith."

(2) Most Mormons have thought in broad geographical terms for the descendents of Lehi.

As do most serious LGT proponents of my acquaintance.

(3) The arguments for the LGT are, in part, an attempt to reject attacks on the BoM archaeologically and genetically.

Yet another non-fact. This is nothing but an ideologically driven canard. The real fact is that the LGT emerged from serious textual study, and it predates Watson and Crick.

(4) Any party interested in the discussion need not be a true believing Mormon. Authenticiry of argument does not automatically inform one's post if one is a LDS true believer.

I will accept that as a fact; not a very relevant or interesting one, though. The fact remains that non-Book of Mormon believers have no dog in this fight, and their interest cannot amount to much more than schadenfreude at the prospect of watching their ideological opponents fight amongst themselves.

(5) Demonizing Bob in terms used for anti-mopologists is not very smart.

It's a good thing no-one has done that, then.

Rob is fully entitled to whatever opinions he wishes to hold about Book of Mormon geography, and I don't know anyone who disagrees with him on such questions who would presume to pass judgement on his faith therefor.

Regards,

Pahoran

[RoseMadder]

So do you think the FARMS just made up the letter that was sent to them in 1993 by Bro Watson?

Mola, I can consider only the evidence submitted: a letter from Bro. Watson, a fax cover by Brent, and a fax from Carla Ogden.

[Pahoran]

Mola, I can consider only the evidence submitted: a letter from Bro. Watson, a fax cover by Brent, and a fax from Carla Ogden.

That sounds so magisterially impartial that, for about a nanonsecond, I almost forgot that you were trying to give inordinate weight to a superseded missive.

Here's some additional evidence for you to consider: when the second Watson letter was first quoted by a FARMS scholar, the malice merchants reacted by accusing that scholar of having fabricated it. And yet the Carla Ogden letter, which came some time later, is a verbatim copy of the second Watson letter. Sister Ogden works in the same office as Brother Watson.

Therefore, the Ogden letter is conclusive evidence for the authenticity of the second Watson letter.

And the first Watson letter is thus superseded, and no honest critic of the Church -- if such, indeed, there be -- uses it any more.

Regards,

Pahoran

[MelvinCJohnson]

That sounds so magisterially impartial that, for about a nanonsecond, I almost forgot that you were trying to give inordinate weight to a superseded missive.

Here's some additional evidence for you to consider: when the second Watson letter was first quoted by a FARMS scholar, the malice merchants reacted by accusing that scholar of having fabricated it. And yet the Carla Ogden letter, which came some time later, is a verbatim copy of the second Watson letter. Sister Ogden works in the same office as Brother Watson.

Therefore, the Ogden letter is conclusive evidence for the authenticity of the second Watson letter.

And the first Watson letter is thus superseded, and no honest critic of the Church -- if such, indeed, there be -- uses it any more.

Regards,

Pahoran

"honest critics? . . . hmmm . . . is that like an honest mopologist?

[ELF1024]

"honest critics? . . . hmmm . . . is that like an honest mopologist?

So, Melvin, are you the pot or the kettle in this situation?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So, Melvin, are you the pot or the kettle in this situation?

Pooned.