Digging Into The Book Of Mormon

[mfbukowski]

So, I'm hoping that one or more of you MesoAmerican advocates can feel good about answering my questions. How do you feel about members of the Church who criticize Dr. Sorenson's book? Is there something wrong with their beliefs? Would you question their commitment to the Book of Mormon?

I really don't know what the fuss is about. A Mormon who attends the temple regularly, holds a temple recommend, has a testimony and magnifies his calling is about as TBM as one can be. Anything else is between him and the Lord.

Funny, I don't recall any questions about BOM geography on the temple recommend interview.

Edited July 23, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I do not remember that 3 volume set by McConkie as a priesthood manual. It was published by Bookcraft. Would you kindly show me?

I have a copy in my hand. It was by Joseph Fielding Smith and compiled by McConkie, copyrighted in 1955, and my copy is nearly falling apart.

Edit: and yes, it was published by Bookcraft.

Edited July 23, 2012 by mfbukowski

[ANACO]

I really don't know what the fuss is about. A Mormon who attends the temple regularly, holds a temple recommend, has a testimony and magnifies his calling is about as TBM as one can be. Anything else is between him and the Lord.

Funny, I don't recall any questions about BOM geography on the temple recommend interview.

I agree.

But the LGT theory is claiming Joseph Smith didn't know his geography either - which is sort of a bizarre belief of one who holds a temple recommend.

"When a man becomes a prophet, God does not instantly answer all questions and concerns about all aspects of the gospel (especially peripheral aspects such as geography)."

www.fairlds.org/FAIR.../Where_Did_the_Book_of_Mormon_Take_Place. pdf

Notice it's not: especially peripheral aspects such as differential equations, or particle physics, no it's "geography."

So while a LGT Theory is very important, it's also a peripheral or unimportant part of the gospel - all to remove the Prophet's sayings from its equation. What wonderful logic.

Must be why Brigham Young led the pioneers to that Valley of Salt Lake in Mexico. After he became the Prophet, God didn't instantly answer all his questions and concerns, especially about peripheral aspects such as geography. /sarcasm

Kind regards.

[Bob Crockett]

I really don't know what the fuss is about. A Mormon who attends the temple regularly, holds a temple recommend, has a testimony and magnifies his calling is about as TBM as one can be. Anything else is between him and the Lord.

Funny, I don't recall any questions about BOM geography on the temple recommend interview.

I haven't asserted that it should or should not be.

I maintain instead that speculation about Book of Mormon geography is [insert here Pres. Smith's anathema].

[CASteinman]

I do not remember that 3 volume set by McConkie as a priesthood manual. It was published by Bookcraft. Would you kindly show me?

I believe he is mistaken. I think it was a 2 volume Gospel Doctrine lesson set by Joseph F. Smith that were used as Priesthood Manuals in 1970 and 1971.

[mfbukowski]

I haven't asserted that it should or should not be.

I maintain instead that speculation about Book of Mormon geography is [insert here Pres. Smith's anathema].

I don't see why. Do you also believe in the Adam God theory? And that men will never walk on the moon? Do you take as doctrine every word out of every prophet's mouth?

You can't because that is in conflict with Elder Christensen's recent conference talk when he specifically said you should not do that. I linked to it earlier- see April conference- the title mentions "Doctrine" in it

He is a prophet seer and revelator and says NOT to take every statement as doctrinal. So which is right?

[mfbukowski]

I believe he is mistaken. I think it was a 2 volume Gospel Doctrine lesson set by Joseph F. Smith that were used as Priesthood Manuals in 1970 and 1971.

Doctrines of Salvation is a 3 volume set written by Joseph Fielding Smith and compiled by McConkie. As I said, I have it on my bookshelf.

I have a paperback edition which was published by Bookcraft in 1955 and as I recall, I bought it in 1981, at Deseret Book, the year I lived in Salt Lake after my baptism in September 1979. It was printed on newsprint paper and has not held up well- it is beyond yellowed in places- the pages are brown- and break if folded just slightly. It was not a priesthood manual, I have many of those as well from that era.

In my copy there is no more information about previous or subsequent editions, and the typeface is somewhat "old fashioned" consistent with the 1955 date and there are no illustrations.

I could probably scan something if that would help anyone.

Edited July 23, 2012 by mfbukowski

[CASteinman]

Doctrines of Salvation is a 3 volume set written by Joseph Fielding Smith and compiled by McConkie. As I said, I have it on my bookshelf.

I have a paperback edition which was published by Bookcraft in 1955 and as I recall, I bought it in 1981, the year I lived in Salt Lake after my baptism in September 1979.

In my copy there is no more information about previous or subsequent editions, and the typeface is somewhat "old fashioned" consistent with the 1955 date and there are no illustrations.

Right. I have an old copy of Doctrines of Salvation as well, but not that old. However, I was referring to the sense that these were used as Priesthood Manuals. I don't think so.

[mfbukowski]

Right. I have an old copy of Doctrines of Salvation as well, but not that old. However, I was referring to the sense that these were used as Priesthood Manuals. I don't think so.

Agreed.

[mfbukowski]

I agree.

But the LGT theory is claiming Joseph Smith didn't know his geography either - which is sort of a bizarre belief of one who holds a temple recommend.

"When a man becomes a prophet, God does not instantly answer all questions and concerns about all aspects of the gospel (especially peripheral aspects such as geography)."

www.fairlds.org/FAIR.../Where_Did_the_Book_of_Mormon_Take_Place. pdf

Notice it's not: especially peripheral aspects such as differential equations, or particle physics, no it's "geography."

So while a LGT Theory is very important, it's also a peripheral or unimportant part of the gospel - all to remove the Prophet's sayings from its equation. What wonderful logic.

Must be why Brigham Young led the pioneers to that Valley of Salt Lake in Mexico. After he became the Prophet, God didn't instantly answer all his questions and concerns, especially about peripheral aspects such as geography. /sarcasm

Kind regards.

Joseph Smith could barely read or write and you are worried that he didn't know geography?

I think it is all much more impressive that such an uneducated individual could do what he did and know what he knew with virtually no formal education.

Spiritual truths have nothing to do with scientific truths.

[Calm]

After he became the Prophet, God didn't instantly answer all his questions and concerns, especially about peripheral aspects such as geography.

Joseph Smith could barely read or write and you are worried that he didn't know geography?

There seems to be an assumption in ANACO's comment that JS asked God about BoM geography. Is there any evidence of this?

[CASteinman]

Joseph Smith could barely read or write and you are worried that he didn't know geography?

In case anyone is interested this website shows the state of geographic knowledge by school kids of about 1810 to about 1840.

http://www.davidrumsey.com/blog/2010/1/7/19th-century-maps-by-children

[mfbukowski]

In case anyone is interested this website shows the state of geographic knowledge by school kids of about 1810 to about 1840.

http://www.davidrums...aps-by-children

I love old maps because they so well illustrate what humans do with matter unorganized. They map it experientially and define boundaries. They are conceptual pictures of nothing which actually "exists" anywhere but in our collective minds. At the time these were drawn, no one had been in space and they even represent a mental point of view which could only be imagined.

Great stuff.

Edited July 23, 2012 by mfbukowski

[cursor]

But it's not official Church teachings. It says so in the article.

Do you think it is - just because he was invited to do as you say, by a committee which included GAs?

Of course not. No one (certainly not I) claimed that. What IS totally clear, however, is that there are varied views regarding Book of Mormon geography 1) among the collective general authorities (over the last 180 years), and 2) among a very large sector of the very faithful church membership (over the last 180 years). Some of those geographic theories make more sense than others.

[mfbukowski]

Of course not. No one (certainly not I) claimed that. What IS totally clear, however, is that there are varied views regarding Book of Mormon geography 1) among the collective general authorities (over the last 180 years), and 2) among a very large sector of the very faithful church membership (over the last 180 years). Some of those geographic theories make more sense than others.

I don't doubt for a second that close to 99% of the general membership believe that the Maya et al were the Lamanites of the BOM. Where else does one find temples etc like those described in the BOM? I think that including Friberg's illustrations of mesoamerican-esque architecture in the BOM has confirmed that in their minds, as well other architectural stylistic references in structures like the Mexico City temple.

Like it or not, the church has tacitly endorsed this view for many years, while also tacitly endorsing the view that the Palmyra Cumorah was THE Cumorah through General Authority statements like those discussed here. Whether or not these two views conflict is not the fault of scholars- I think the conflict was created by tacitly by "what everyone believes" without thinking through the details. Now the poor apologists get to try and clean up the mess.

Edited July 23, 2012 by mfbukowski

[cursor]

Yet, it's well known Michael R. Coe disagrees with your father's conclusions about the people of Mesoamerica being the Nephites (or Lamanites or Mulekites).

It's clear from the podcast that Michael Coe is not very familiar at all with the content of the Book of Mormon. If one doesn't understand half equation, how is it possible to come to any sensible (much less, authoritative) comparison? He even got some Mesoamerican stuff wrong (the other half of the equation). See OpenLetterCoe.pdf.

In fact your Father's personal opinion, which he clearly states is not official church teaching, claims that Joseph Smith's personal opinion was wrong - (and by inference, that Smith's opinion was personal but not revelatory)

Joseph Smith himself admitted to learning.

Joseph Smith developed his knowledge and depth of spirituality pretty much like the rest of us, "line upon line, precept upon precept." (D&C 98:12). Not all things are revealed to the prophets. If all things were revealed to JS, then why did he continue to receive revelations (new stuff) after the first vision, or after he received the golden plates, or after he translated the plates, or after ...

At what point might he have understood everything there there was to know?

[cursor]

< snip >

Edited July 24, 2012 by cursor

[ERayR]

I have a copy in my hand. It was by Joseph Fielding Smith and compiled by McConkie, copyrighted in 1955, and my copy is nearly falling apart.

Edit: and yes, it was published by Bookcraft.

I know that I have a copy of vol 1 in my bookshelf. I don't know where my vol 2 and vol 3 are but the claim was that it was used as a priesthood manual. For one as dogmatic and sure of his sources as Bob I think he has just blown his cover.

[cursor]

So while a LGT Theory is very important, it's also a peripheral or unimportant part of the gospel - all to remove the Prophet's sayings from its equation. .

As far as I can tell, no one has recommended that all of Joseph's Smith's statements be ignored. It is important, though, to recognize that he made some statements that indicate that he too was learning new things regarding Book of Mormon lands.

[livy111us]

Some just ignore the statements from Joseph Smith which place The Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica or anywhere else outside of their pet theory, and only adhere and promote the statements which agree with them. Then, claim that everyone else is discounting the Prophet for not agreeing with the handful of statements that they like. It's real easy to do, but not very honest.

[Anijen]

Used as a priesthood manual.

So.

Does that make it official doctrine? I recall some of Hugh Nibleys writings were also used as a manual. If I think about it so was Orson Pratts, etc. It does not make everything in print and used as a manual, official doctrine.

I just taught a primary class last Sunday one of the pictures shows a Lamanite swinging a macuahuitl. It is the most up to date manual for that primary class. Does that make it official that Lamanites used macuahuitls?

Edited July 23, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[Anijen]

If used in any church publication ie, manuals, videos, pamphlets they still do not have the "official doctrine" stamp of approval, and are open to change.

There is no official doctrine on the setting of the Book of Mormon which includes the final battle between the Lamanites or the Nephites.

[Anijen]

What does have official doctrine in it? It is the scriptures. So IMO the Book of Mormon itself trumps what is speculated about by General Authorities or what is printed in manuals that have changed over time.

The writers of the Book of Mormon know more about the geography in which thy lived better than any person alive since the restoration of the church. If I had to guess whose knowledge came next I would have to place Joseph Smith Jr. (and I would add that Moroni was not there to teach him geography at all) after that it is 100% opinion.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[cursor]

Joseph Smith himself admitted to learning.

Joseph Smith developed his knowledge and depth of spirituality pretty much like the rest of us, "line upon line, precept upon precept." (D&C 98:12). Not all things are revealed to the prophets. If all things were revealed to JS, then why did he continue to receive revelations (new stuff) after the first vision, or after he received the golden plates, or after he translated the plates, or after ...

At what point might he have understood everything there there was to know?

In 1842, just 20 months prior to his death, he gives clear indication that the geographic picture was still unfolding -- and scientific discoveries in Central America were adding new light.

The Times and Seasons, Is edited, printed and published about the first fifteenth of every month,

on the corner of Water and Bain Streets, Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois, by JOSEPH SMITH.

[W]e have found another important fact relating to the truth of the Book of Mormon. Central America, or Guatimala [Guatemala], is situated north of the Isthmus of Darien and once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south.-The city of Zarahemla, burnt at the crucifixion of the Savior, and rebuilt afterwards, stood upon this land as will be seen from the following words in the book of Alma ...It is certainly a good thing for the excellency and veracity, of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, that the ruins of Zarahemla have been found where the Nephites left them: and that a large stone with engravings upon it as Mosiah said; and a 'large round stone, with the sides sculptured in hieroglyphics,' as Mr. Stephens has published, is also among the left remembrances of the, (to him,) lost and unknown. We are not going to declare positively that the ruins of Quirigua are those of Zarahemla, but when the land and the stones, and the books tell the story so plain, we are of opinion, that it would require more proof than the Jews could bring to prove the disciples stole the body of Jesus from the tomb, to prove that the ruins of the city in question, are not one of those referred to in the Book of Mormon...It will not be a bad plan to compare Mr. Stephens' ruined cities with those in the Book of Mormon: light cleaves to light, and facts are supported by facts.

emphasis mine

[ANACO]

As far as I can tell, no one has recommended that all of Joseph's Smith's statements be ignored. It is important, though, to recognize that he made some statements that indicate that he too was learning new things regarding Book of Mormon lands.

Here it is:

What may startle some about this situation is that most of what Joseph Smith said or implied about geography indicates that he did not understand or was ambiguous about the fact, as it turns out, that Mesoamerica was the particular setting for Nephite history. Until he encountered the Stephens's book, Joseph gave no hint that he was aware that such a limited area with a distinctive civilized culture even existed in the Americas. Even with Stephens's material in mind, he made no more than a passing attempt to relate the Book of Mormon's story to the newly-found ruins. And in the long run, the little blip on the Latter-day Saints' mental screen caused by the explorer's book faded as the mistaken folk view reasserted its dominance. http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=196

emphasis added

I'm sorry. Your father wrote the above. He alleged that Joseph Smith had a mistaken view of BoM geography. The alleged "mistaken folk view" was a hemispheric or North America setting - at the least a New York setting (Cumorah).

He claimed Joseph Smith was mistaken until he received a travel book about the Maya - two years before his death.

Again, the articles written by your father in the Ensign, are not Church Teachings, as he indicated. Neither is his claim that Joseph Smith was mistaken.

It's very simple. The statement above in quotes, is key to the LGT Theory to remove or question prophetic utterances made by the Prophet - all to bolster the LGT.

Kind regards.