Digging Into The Book Of Mormon

[ERayR]

What did 123 say to get banned?

Hope I don't get ib trouble for asking, but why is this board so heavily moderated?

I would say an egregious infraction of the rules.

[cursor]

What did 123 say to get banned?

Hope I don't get ib trouble for asking, but why is this board so heavily moderated?

I think that it might be more about attitude and flavor of projected accusation.

[Kenngo1969]

It's alright. I think people who believe in more than one Springville are in apostasy. We all know there is only one, and it is next door to Shelbyville.

There's a Shelbyville in Utah?

Who knew?

[cursor]

ciuoror says: Now, are you willing to discuss Mosiah 8 and it's overreaching clarification on the scope of Book of Mormon geography? Let's set 19th and 20th century statements aside for the moment -- let's get to the meat. What does Mormon tell us, in his codex? I'm game.

Nope. Can't. It would be contrary to my argument here.

LOL ... I have more serious things to do. It's my turn to make this week's bread loaves. Hey, do you want the recipe, Bob?

[robuchan]

Think about it a minute.

Who precisely is supposed to answer this question? Do you actually think a moderator will answer this?

Yes? If not maybe someone else that knows the board culture better than me could answer.

[cursor]

A responsible communication style is key in any expectation of longevity on ANY digital forum. I, personally, feel that 123 exceeded that expectation.

[Anijen]

The talks given by our General Authorities are inspirational and uplifting. I do not doubt that all the speakers were the recipients of revelation. Perhaps the Spirit helped guide them to the topic they should speak about. However I do not think that the revelation will come down and clarify where the extinction of the Nephite's occurred. I definitely do not think the Spirit dictated them word for word their talks.

For example I listened to President Benson in conference proclaim pride (all pride) was bad and we were to humble ourselves. I also heard President Uchtdorf clarify it but we could be proud in certain circumstances, (also in conference).

When the purchase of the hill Cumorah was finalized it was a big deal and talks were made at the time. We celebrated the acquisition of one of our sacred historic places and we should be happy. I do not think that the Holy Ghost wrote word for word the talks given at that conference and I am sure that the prevailing traditional belief that Cumorah was where the final battle took place and that traditional thought was held by most if not all leaders at that time.

Because it is not concerning a saving doctrine or ordinance (not even close) the Spirit will let us grow and ponder and induce us to more studying. Perhaps we who favor a Mesoamerican setting will come to a conclusion that it was wrong or perhaps we will find out it is right or perhaps we might find out it happened in Malaysia or Ireland... It doesn't matter, my faith has not been weakened and in fact has been a motivation for us to study the sacred scriptures even more.

My point being; all talks from conference are inspired yet all are still written by us frail humans whose own traditional thought dictates how we write the spiritual message we are to give. I will accept the inspiration by one leader that the Lord has not yet declared where it happened, but focus on myself becoming closer to my Father in Heaven.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[Calm]

Apostasy seems to mean the opposite of accepting the counsel of the Brethren.

But what qualifies as "counsel"? I read much of what has been quoted about geography as counsel to avoid worrying about it, which would include in my opinion assigning those who differ in interpretation the role of apostates.

Here is the Church's discussion about apostasy. Can you point to what you would say support your position that not accepting a certain location for Cumorah as doctrine is apostasy?

http://www.lds.org/study/topics/apostasy?lang=eng

Apostasy

When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy. One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread apostasy, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth. This apostasy lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the restoration of the fulness of the gospel.

Additional Information

During the Great Apostasy, people were without divine direction from living prophets. Many churches were established, but they did not have priesthood power to lead people to the true knowledge of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Parts of the holy scriptures were corrupted or lost, and no one had the authority to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost or perform other priesthood ordinances.

We now live in a time when the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored. But unlike the Church in times past, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not be overcome by general apostasy. The scriptures teach that the Church will never again be destroyed (see D&C 138:44; see also Daniel 2:44).

Although there will not be another general apostasy from the truth, we must each guard against personal apostasy by keeping covenants, obeying the commandments, following Church leaders, partaking of the sacrament, and constantly strengthening our testimonies through daily scripture study, prayer, and service.

See also Church Administration; Priesthood; Restoration of the Gospel

—See True to the Faith (2004), 13-14

[cursor]

Scans of the original Ensign articles (about 6MB each)

Digging into the Book of Mormon, John L. Sorenson

Part 1 of 2

– 1985 September

Part 2 of 2

– 1985 October

[webbles]

There's been reference to a statement made by Harold B. Lee. That appears to be the only statement by one of the Apostles that has some commentary on the Hill Cumorah which is contrary to Oliver Cowdery's. However, you'll note that he seems to be condemning speculation that puts the Hill Cumorah in Mexico, rather than endorsing it.

This, once again, is being cited for the wrong purpose. People who suggest there are two Cumorahs fall under the condemnation of Pres. Smith and the disapproval of Elder Lee.

I'm sorry but you are interpreting Harold B. Lee wrong. His entire talk was about what should be taught in CES. And the only things that should be taught are items of doctrinal importance and useful for our salvation. In this quote, he puts it quite firmly that teaching the location of the Hill Cumorah in any location (Mexico, New York, etc) should not be done in CES because it is not necessary for our salvation. So if you are saying in Sunday School, Seminary, etc that the Hill Cumorah (the one where the battle took place) is in New York, you are also falling under his disapproval.

Also, you'll note that he does not endorse the New York location either.

[Bob Crockett]

I assure you I am interpreting him correctly.

I'm not claiming Elder Lee endorsed the New York location. He merely condemned Book of Mormon geography in the same sentence as pointing out that some have pushed the Hill Cumorah to Mexico. One must assume from the context of his comments that he didn't approve the speculative effort to do so. Now, had he said: "Some have said that the Hill Cumorah is only in New York and can't have been elsewhere; we should not involve ourselves in speculative geography" then the context and the implication from his statement would have been different. But it wasn't and isn't. There's a Latin term which describes the contextual interpretation here; if I find it I'll post it.

I know that this is a hard thing for you and others on this forum to accept. This forum seems to be a refuge for the geographic hobbyist. What is most confusing or concerning to many here is that apostates enter this forum to browbeat the hobbyist. The apostates, who don't believe the Brethren to have been inspired on anything, hypocritically point to the Brethren's statements to embarrass the hobbyist who so tenuously claims to his view of Mesoamerican geography.

What further clouds the issue is the fact that the Mesoamerican hobbyists have gained lots of traction in church-sponsored media and literature, as can be witnessed by the tons of real estate committed to the hobby by FARMS publications, church videos and on rare occasion, the Ensign.

Then there's the tension thrown into the mix with the entire DNA thing. Mesoamerican hobbyists find it convenient to denounce a hemispheric model because the science of DNA doesn't quite do it justice. Before DNA it was the apparent lack of archaeological support for a Great Lakes model for the final battle at Cumorah.

But, my point has never, ever been that the Hill Cumorah is and will always be in New York to the exclusion of Mesoamerica. My point has been that Book of Mormon geographic hobbyism is wrong and contrary to the direction of the Brethren. It isn't that the Church takes no position on Book of Mormon geography. It is that the Church discourages speculation on Book of Mormon geography. It isn't neutrality; it is muted hostility.

I read Ancient America Speaks when it was first published. I was troubled by it and remain troubled by it. It takes the most vague and broad of references from the Book of Mormon to spend time doing exactly what Elder Lee says we shouldn't be doing.

My views on this subject been met with a lot of hostility here. But my view is only one of consistent orthodoxy, consistency with the Brethren.

I've been told my rhetoric is unreasonably harsh. What I like to do is quote from Pres. Smith, who says that those who engage in the two-Cumorah speculation are disturbed in the faith. I have inferred from that statement that Book of Mormon geographic hobbyists are incipient troublemakers. So, part of my rhetoric is to simply quote from President Smith. I can easily see how a hobbyist would not be such a person, and could just be somebody swept along with two decades of enthusiastic support for Ancient America Speaks. So I don't make any value judgments about individual posters here, because I can't tell if they are faithless DNA-worriers, interested scholars oblivious to Pres. Smith's concerns or if they are merely sheep following the leader. I merely judge the genre.

Here is the Church's discussion about apostasy. Can you point to what you would say support your position that not accepting a certain location for Cumorah as doctrine is apostasy?

It more like the Brethren tell us repeatedly not to get involved in speculative Book of Mormon geography, and then there's a book written on the subject and a whole cottage industry springing out of it. It isn't the two-Cumorahs thing (although it might be). It's the direct deviation from the Brethren's counsel, which is apostasy, if I am not mistaken.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

Have you read the entire talk or are you basing your interpretation just off the quote that has been given?

[Bob Crockett]

Have you read the entire talk or are you basing your interpretation just off the quote that has been given?

I have, months ago. Several months ago the entire talk was circulated when Vogel was making his points. Not this week.

[Calm]

What further clouds the issue is the fact that the Mesoamerican hobbyists have gained lots of traction in church-sponsored media and literature, as can be witnessed by the tons of real estate committed to the hobby by FARMS publications, church videos and on rare occasion, the Ensign.

Remarkable how often this happens considering the official hostility you claim exists.

[Calm]

I have, months ago. Several months ago the entire talk was circulated when Vogel was making his points. Not this week.

You claimed that the quote was garbled and yet it is perfectly accurate. How do you know that the rest of your claim about Vogel is any more accurate?

If it was just several months ago you should be able to find the thread as it's been more than several months since the last 'dump' of old threads for an upgrade, probably last fall in fact if the dating in the Library is indicative.

Edited July 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bob Crockett]

You claimed that the quote was garbled and yet it is perfectly accurate. How do you know that the rest of your claim about Vogel is any more accurate?

I was merely referencing Vogel's claims and what I recalled about it. That was his claim. You may disagree with him. I often or usually do.

And, even if my recollection of what Vogel said was faulty, or if his conclusion was faulty, we can see for ourselves what Elder Lee said. Even as phrased above, the quote is clear to an objective reader. When Elder Lee heard that people were trying to move Cumorah south of the Rio Grande, he used it as an occasion to condemn speculative geography.

Remarkable how often this happens considering the official hostility you claim exists.

I could speculate and say that the harsh things said about writers, like my BYU Professor friend, who advocated a Great Lakes theory, may have led to FARMS Review's downfall. I think my speculation could have more solid foundation than the speculation in Ancient America Speaks.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

snip

Edited July 22, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

I was merely referencing Vogel's claims and what I recalled about it. That was his claim.

I am pointing out there is no evidence save your claim that he made that claim. There are extensive conversations by Mr. Vogel about Zarahemla but none dealing with that specific quote. I am thinking you have confused one discussion with another and come to a faulty conclusion and now are using it as support for your claim. If you want to claim the quote has been misused, then fine, but I think it wise to do so on your own interpretation and not on an unsupported discussion that you apparently don't remember accurately (since the quote was not garbled at all and Vogel is highly unlikely to have claimed that if he was referencing the original talk). Edited July 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bob Crockett]

I am pointing out there is no evidence save your claim that he made that claim. There are extensive conversations by Mr. Vogel about Zarahemla but none dealing with that specific quote. I am thinking you have confused one discussion with another and come to a faulty conclusion and now are using it as support for your claim. If you want to claim the quote has been misused, then fine, but I think it wise to do so on your own interpretation and not on an unsupported discussion.

Maybe you could revisit my last post. Your point, that I have a very poor memory (or worse), is an irrelevant aside to the points and authorities I'm mustered. You have not one single General Authority statement to support Ancient America Speaks.

And what do you make of the Brethren's repeated drumbeat that we should not engage in speculative Book of Mormon geography? Do you think Ancient America Speaks runs afoul of that counsel?

Edited July 22, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

(or worse)

I am not suggesting anything save you might have mixed up some conversation and confused Dan Vogel with someone else.

And what do you make of the Brethren's repeated drumbeat that we should not engage in speculative Book of Mormon geography?

I observe their actions as well as their words to draw my conclusions. Combining their actions with various comments (including the quotes at this link: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements/No_revealed_geography ) my opinion is that they do not want speculative geography to assume such a great importance in someone's life that they use it to condemn the faithfulness of others or ignore the actual important stuff that has to do with our salvation. I see it as saying speculative geography should be for leisure enjoyment, something easily laid aside if necessary, but not to be completely avoided.

Edited July 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[livy111us]

After reading this thread and seeing the fundamental and dogmatic view of Bob and his selective memory when coming to his conclusions, I am beginning to seriously doubt what I've learned from him about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. If he has been so liberal with this information, what else has he twisted? I thought his MMM was excellent work, but am now calling it into question. Personally, I don't care where Cumorah is and would be perfectly fine if it was in Mesoamerica, New York, or Alaska. But the way information is used and followed with the accusation of apostasy to those who disagree with him (that actually sounds quite familiar) is disturbing to me.

Edited July 22, 2012 by livy111us

[Calm]

I'm sorry but you are interpreting Harold B. Lee wrong. His entire talk was about what should be taught in CES. And the only things that should be taught are items of doctrinal importance and useful for our salvation. In this quote, he puts it quite firmly that teaching the location of the Hill Cumorah in any location (Mexico, New York, etc) should not be done in CES because it is not necessary for our salvation. So if you are saying in Sunday School, Seminary, etc that the Hill Cumorah (the one where the battle took place) is in New York, you are also falling under his disapproval.

Also, you'll note that he does not endorse the New York location either.

Having just read his talk, I think this quote sums up this part of it quite well:

You as teachers are not being sent out to teach new doctrine. You’re to teach the old doctrines, not so plainly that they can just understand, but you must teach the doctrines of the Church so plainly that no one can misunderstand.

Right before the section mentioning Zarahemla he says this:

Another question frequently asked is, “Is it necessary for one to receive his second endowments to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise?” And I ask, “Where did you get that from?” And a good many of such questions are traced back to one teacher. In nearly every class it seems to be a pet subject of his. And I’ve said, “What he’s told you is absolutely false, so that’s something you’ll have to unlearn.”

This is how he ends his talk:

God bless you teachers. We have placed great responsibility on you. We trust you. May the Lord bless you and keep you and help you to be wise and loyal to these fundamental things that we have talked about this morning,

[Calm]

I was merely referencing Vogel's claims and what I recalled about it. That was his claim.

If you want to reference Vogel on this, perhaps you should write him and see if he did have a conversation on this particular quote and what it amounted to. I would be interested to hear his ideas if he did make that claim because after reading the talk, I don't see it at all. Edited July 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[webbles]

But, my point has never, ever been that the Hill Cumorah is and will always be in New York to the exclusion of Mesoamerica. My point has been that Book of Mormon geographic hobbyism is wrong and contrary to the direction of the Brethren. It isn't that the Church takes no position on Book of Mormon geography. It is that the Church discourages speculation on Book of Mormon geography. It isn't neutrality; it is muted hostility.

And Book of Mormon geography speculation includes the location of the Hill Cumorah. Even stating that there is only one Hill Cumorah is geographic hobbyism and is specifically disapproved by Harold B. Lee.

Edited July 22, 2012 by webbles

[Bob Crockett]

And Book of Mormon geography speculation includes the location of the Hill Cumorah. Even stating that there is only one Hill Cumorah is geographic hobbyism and is specifically disapproved by Harold B. Lee.

Actually, I have traced the authorities to show that is not the case.

But my greater point was to call into question any Book of Mormon geography and ask how it is Ancient America speaks doesn't constitute the very thing criticized?