Latest "Pure Mormonism" Blog: North Vs. Central American Bofm Model

[thesometimesaint]

Yep. That's the mental gymnastics Mesoamerica Proponents provide.

And how's that working for you with President Monson?

After General Conference, does he clock out, then go home and dig a pit for his neighbor?

Since when has any prophet claimed infallibility? The Church has specifically stated that this is not the case.

It works out just fine for me. I allow the prophets to be human, and still be great and honorable men that are called by God to lead his Church here on earth.

"A Prophet is only a Prophet when acting as such". Where did I mention anything about digging a pit for his neighbor? Just because I don't put any mortal on an impossibly high pedestal doesn't mean I don't hold them in high esteem. Plus recognize them as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.

Edited January 6, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Calm]

• Banned
  
• 
  
• 5 posts
  

I am shocked!....not really.

[Calm]

Why will JS get revelations concerning things such as finance or property, and the Lord even naming the individuals that associated with him but not the geography of BoM lands? The D&C is full of these revelations and it is usually a revelation to get someone to do something they don't want to do.

Because he asked?

[Brant Gardner]

Why will JS get revelations concerning things such as finance or property, and the Lord even naming the individuals that associated with him but not the geography of BoM lands? The D&C is full of these revelations and it is usually a revelation to get someone to do something they don't want to do.

Frankly, Book of Mormon geography wasn't an issue. They had already assumed that it covered the whole hemisphere, so they didn't wonder further. We don't get a lot of interest in the topic until much later. Even the excitement over Stephens and Catherwood's book was because it "proved" the Book of Mormon, not that it said anything about geography.

[canard78]

Because the Lord never revealed it to him. Joseph never claimed that all knowledge had been dumped into his head. While he had seen visions that allowed him to better understand what he was translating, I don't know any way to make that visual representation specifically mark a location. The Mesoamerican locations which fit the Book of Mormon are not jungles, they are mountains, rivers and deciduous trees. There wouldn't be much there to tell Joseph where those things occurred.

If the history of Joseph's remarks on geography tell us that he was open to new ideas and embraced them, why should anyone be required to restrict Joseph to a concept of revelation to which he never subscribed (that he should know everything).

I have to presume that Joseph either didn't ask where Zarahemla was or did ask and was not given an answer. He could have very easily found out if the answer was there for the giving.

My mission president taught that to sort moves, he and the assistants would move names around a map and pray for confirmation that they were right in the moves needed.

There's no reason he couldn't have taken a 1800s map out and prayed for a location.

Frankly, Book of Mormon geography wasn't an issue. They had already assumed that it covered the whole hemisphere, so they didn't wonder further. We don't get a lot of interest in the topic until much later. Even the excitement over Stephens and Catherwood's book was because it "proved" the Book of Mormon, not that it said anything about geography.

This seems a reasonable suggestion. If Joseph thought he already knew the answer then why ask. On the other hand, I can't imagine he, nor any other prophet since hasn't thought to ask where the historic Zarahemla is/was. If we could identify it, wouldn't it be a huge leap forward in bringing the Book of Mormon (and the church) out of obscurity?

[canard78]

Frankly, Book of Mormon geography wasn't an issue. They had already assumed that it covered the whole hemisphere, so they didn't wonder further. We don't get a lot of interest in the topic until much later. Even the excitement over Stephens and Catherwood's book was because it "proved" the Book of Mormon, not that it said anything about geography.

Out of interest, how much of the following statements do you think Joseph got wrong? Given it was in the Wentworth Letter we can't really say "campfire stories."

"This messenger proclaimed himself to be an angel of God... I was also informed the concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country [America] and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was [also] made known unto me; I was also told where were deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgment of the records of the ancient prophets that had existed on this continent....

In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country."

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/07/the-wentworth-letter?lang=eng

I've made bold the parts which are potentially difficult. Some of these we could be "wordsmiths" with and say:

"the history of America" (but not the only events of America during that era)

"the aboriginal inhabitants... the first settlement... were destroyed" (but not the only inhabitants of America and not all of them were wiped out)

"America has been inhabited by two distinct races of people" (but not the only groups of people and not distinct as there was probably some racial mixing)

I could go on - but all of that "wordsmithing" would completely undermine the intended meaning of Joseph's words from a document of high importance and influence (a part of which was later canonised, so one would presume was even inspired).

In order for 'limited geography' or 'drop in the ocean of inhabitants DNA evidence' to work do we have to say Joseph got the geography and ancestry completely wrong. Bear in mind this is the man who had visions of the peoples he translated published a book about, to the point that after Moroni's visit and after the visions he had received about the people he would later translate a book about, he was able to tell his family stories about them "with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them." From fairmormon.org: "(Joseph) telling "amusing recitals" about the ancient inhabitants of the American continent occurred during the years that Joseph was being prepared to receive the plates. The stories that he was telling related to information that he was receiving from the angel Moroni"

So with all this preparation and knowledge, did he get it wrong when he wrote to Wentworth or am I misreading it?

Edited January 6, 2013 by canard78

[cdowis]

Why will JS get revelations concerning things such as finance or property, and the Lord even naming the individuals that associated with him but not the geography of BoM lands?

Are you giving counsel to the Lord? Telling Him about his priorities -- BOM geography is equally important as how to run the kingdom (specifics on finance and property).

Any other suggestions?

Edited January 6, 2013 by cdowis

[livy111us]

In order for 'limited geography' or 'drop in the ocean of inhabitants DNA evidence' to work do we have to say Joseph got the geography and ancestry completely wrong.

No, because we don't *know* where The BOM took place. The Church has said that BOM geography has never been revealed by the Lord, this includes revealing it to Joseph Smith. So if it has never been revealed then Joseph Smith was doing exactly what he should have been doing by using his intellect in an attempt to figure out BOM geography. As he learned about ancient cultures from books (from both North and Central America), newspaper articles, and even stories he heard, he would see parallels between them and BOM cultures and write about them. If it was revealed then you wouldn't see a changing geography nor would he need to try to figure it out through secular means.

[canard78]

Are you giving counsel to the Lord? Telling Him about his priorities -- BOM geography is equally important as how to run the kingdom (specifics on finance and property).

Any other suggestions?

I think that's a little bit of a stretch and I think it's clear Tacenda is not remotely trying to councel the Lord. It's a reasonable question.

Joseph was having revelations on an almost daily basis at some stages (especially around 1831). It's not like there wasn't a spare 'day' to fit in a Zarahemla location if it had been asked for, or if it were needed.

[rockpond]

I think that's a little bit of a stretch and I think it's clear Tacenda is not remotely trying to councel the Lord. It's a reasonable question.

Joseph was having revelations on an almost daily basis at some stages (especially around 1831). It's not like there wasn't a spare 'day' to fit in a Zarahemla location if it had been asked for, or if it were needed.

How far are we willing to push that logic? If the Lord were to reveal sufficient archeological evidence to prove the historicity of the Book of Mormon, then we'd no longer need faith. Our agency could be subverted.

So, if it were needed, yes - He could have revealed it. But not everything we (even the prophet) ask for is needed.

[Tacenda]

How far are we willing to push that logic? If the Lord were to reveal sufficient archeological evidence to prove the historicity of the Book of Mormon, then we'd no longer need faith. Our agency could be subverted.

So, if it were needed, yes - He could have revealed it. But not everything we (even the prophet) ask for is needed.

Then tell that to people who have spent the majority of their lives researching. Or their families...

[canard78]

How far are we willing to push that logic? If the Lord were to reveal sufficient archeological evidence to prove the historicity of the Book of Mormon, then we'd no longer need faith. Our agency could be subverted.

So, if it were needed, yes - He could have revealed it. But not everything we (even the prophet) ask for is needed.

Our agency would be fine. They'd still have the option to engage with the visionary revelations etc in the book itself. Was Laman, Lemurl, Nephi & Sam's agency subverted by seeing an angel.

But yes, I can only presume that it's not been given because we don't need to know. I'm not sure why that is. But then I'm not sure about a lot of things.

[thesometimesaint]

How far are we willing to push that logic? If the Lord were to reveal sufficient archeological evidence to prove the historicity of the Book of Mormon, then we'd no longer need faith. Our agency could be subverted.

So, if it were needed, yes - He could have revealed it. But not everything we (even the prophet) ask for is needed.

We pretty well know where the events of the Bible took place. That didn't destroy our agency. Indeed it takes more faith to be believe the Bible(Talking Snakes, Flat Earth, walking on water, the whole Son of God thing) than it does to believe the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is rather mundane by comparison. Yours is a bit of faulty logic.

[canard78]

We pretty well know where the events of the Bible took place. That didn't destroy our agency. Indeed it takes more faith to be believe the Bible(Talking Snakes, Flat Earth, walking on water, the whole Son of God thing) than it does to believe the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is rather mundane by comparison. Yours is a bit of faulty logic.

I fully agree with you. But lots will agree with rockpond.

We have the geographic location for Book of Abraham's events and people seem to have more issues with that book than any other.

[thesometimesaint]

I think that's largely due to fact that the "real" history of Abraham is lost in the sands of time, and three of the worlds great religions are descendant from him.

[Calm]

Joseph was having revelations on an almost daily basis at some stages (especially around 1831). It's not like there wasn't a spare 'day' to fit in a Zarahemla location if it had been asked for, or if it were needed.

Perhaps the Lord left it unanswered so that all of us, starting from Joseph on down would have something to exercise our brains on rather than just rely on him for all of the answers to such factual questions (that had nothing to do with how we should behave or how the Church was supposed to be structured, etc.)

[teddyaware]

Our agency would be fine. They'd still have the option to engage with the visionary revelations etc in the book itself. Was Laman, Lemurl, Nephi & Sam's agency subverted by seeing an angel.

.The free agency of Laman and Lemuel was not subverted by seeing an angel, but they did afterward receive greater condemnation for sinning against greater light and knowledge, after treating the angelic visitation lightly and then persisting on in their state of rebellion against God. So the concern here isn't just subversion of free ageny, but the meeting out of greater condemnation by the Lord when people who unworthily receive great spiritual confirmation are left with no excuse. For those who refuse to repent after receiveing undeniable confirmation that the Restored Gospel is true, spiritually speaking, it would have been much better for them if they had been left in the dark because "where much is given much is required." God in his mercy leaves people in the dark so as to spare them the greater condemnation. And he does so in the hope that they will one day embrace the truth without first receiving a powerful sign that they are, as yet, unworthy to receive. Think about it...

Edited January 6, 2013 by teddyaware

[thesometimesaint]

The thing is that we aren't to judge when, or if, someone has received the greater light. That belong in Gods' far more capable hands.

[cdowis]

I think that's a little bit of a stretch and I think it's clear Tacenda is not remotely trying to councel the Lord. It's a reasonable question.

Joseph was having revelations on an almost daily basis at some stages (especially around 1831). It's not like there wasn't a spare 'day' to fit in a Zarahemla location if it had been asked for, or if it were needed.

The question assumes that JS was making this up, and this was his priorities.

Now, if we assume that these revelations come from the Lord, then we can ask many questions on why the Lord does certain things == literally a million questions, and I cannot even pretend to understand the thinking of the Lord.

I have pointed out many times that BOM geography is not a doctrinal issue, that the Lord is not in the business of satisfying our curiosity on many issues -- how the earth and solar system was created, how many inhabited planets exist and why doesn't the Lord allow us to communicate with them, how He is able to go vast distances to visit all of his creations, how exactly does eternity work -- the very "beginning" of things, I am very curious on how black holes fit into the creation process -- are therre multiuniverses, etc etc etc etc. And now **he** questions the Lord on why He has not given us the details of BOM geography?? I got alot of questions, and for me that is WAAAY down on the list.

But I am not arrogant to question the Lord on why He does not address these questions, but gives revelations on relatively mundane issues. Now you can tread where angels fear to tread -- "we expect the Lord to explain to me why the Lord does not tell us these things".

Best of luck, pal. Everything we need to answer BOM geography is found in the text, and on the ground. It's a matter of research, and the rest of your time should be anxiously engaged in your salvation, rather than demanding that the Lord satisfy your curiosity.

Edited January 7, 2013 by cdowis

[Calm]

I wonder how many people over the eons have asked the Lord where Eden was.

[Brant Gardner]

Given it was in the Wentworth Letter we can't really say "campfire stories."

No, but apparently he copied much of the Wentworth letter response from one of the Pratts (as I recall). Even at that, the letter gives what had become the standard answer at the time, not a revelation. You will search in vain for the Wentworth letter in the D&C. It was written for a newspaper and from information as they understood it. So, I don't have any problem saying that it represented what Joseph understood, and that what he understood was the result of their best thinking rather than revelation.

I would have a bigger problem suggesting that everyone since Joseph has forgotten something that Joseph was clear about. When the powers that be have continuously maintained that there is no official geography, I follow them is supposing that what Joseph did say was speculation rather than revelation.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith, on 04 January 2013 - 05:34 AM, said:

They say that the only thing we can be certain of in this life is death and taxes. The rest is merely a matter of opinion, even if strongly felt and expressed.

However, we make decisions every day based on likelihood or probability. The question of where the Hill Cumorah might be, if it is real and can be located even in a generic sense, entails careful analysis of a broad spectrum of data as well as dialogue with others who are so engaged -- not all of whom must necessarily agree on all particulars. That is how the scholarly enterprise proceeds and suggests conclusions on a variety of questions.

Are you conversant with the manifold considerations which one must bring to bear on the question of where the Nephite Hill Cumorah might be? Are you aware that it is the same location as Jaredite Ramah? How might one go about establishing with some reasonable degree of assurance the relative location of this place in a general Book of Mormon context? What do distance statements within the Book of Mormon suggest? What makes sense in the real world? I could go on, but you probably get the point. Are you familiar with such considerations and how they have been handled over the years? Endless discussions of this topic have taken place on this Board.

I agree with you. I agree that with all those variables you list we can't be certain.

It's because of this that I was a little surprised to see that you'd said "Cumorah is in Mesoamerica" rather than "I think Cumorah is in Mesoamerica" or "Cumorah is probably in Mesoamerica"

You misunderstand me. The "variables" you describe (my "manifold considerations") actually clarify and provide greater certainty when they are applied. In the absence of such rigor, of course you will be less sure of anything. Historical and archeological reconstructions of anything require a good deal of evidence from a variety of sources, and it is upon that basis that our standard histories are written and improved.

When I said that "Cumorah is in Mesoamerica," I was virtually saying that a multiplicity of data points make that very likely, and simultaneously make other options very unlikely. All secular knowledge is constructive and based upon probabilities.

[Robert F. Smith]

Tell us why Members of the only True Church have to believe the Prophet Joseph Smith learned the true location of the Book of Mormon from a travel book?

And this two years before Joseph Smith was killed. And everything he had said or implied up to that point, of reading the travel book, about North America was wrong - that Joseph Smith didn't understand was he was talking about:

I'll tell you why. Because Joseph Smith did point to North America as the Book's prime location, thus such statements about him are required to put forth in proving a Mesoamerica setting.

This is the main event of the mental gymnastics for the Mesaomerica Olympics.

Your premises, conclusions, and wild suppositions lose me here.

I see no reason to claim that Joseph actually knew where Book of Mormon events took place, and when the Stephens & Catherwood volume fell into his hands in Nauvoo, I see no reason to think that he needed a revelation about their book. All he needed was the same sort of interest which the other brethren there had when discovering the one place in the Americas where such high civilization with writing existed. He may have been astounded.

How do you account for the fact that such civilizations as described in the Book of Mormon just happen to turn up in only one place in the Americas? Coincidence? How do you explain that the rise and fall of those Mesoamerican cultures occurs in the same chronological and archeological sequence as in the Book of Mormon? Coincidence again?

[Calm]

MOAI got banned rather quickly so won't be answering your questions.

[blackstrap]

It is conceivable that Joseph was shown in vision the city of Zarahemla and even Cumorah and still not know where it was. If you are shown a picture of a remote valley in the Rockies you would be hard pressed to identify it as it would look like anyplace within 3000 miles or more. If you were shown an birdseye view of any one of 50 US cities ,again you might find it hard to pick out exactly which one it was unless you were very familiar with the precise layout.

Even today's astronauts circling the earth every 90 minutes still must ponder a while before they can pick out where they are at any given moment due to cloud cover,etc.

Moses was taken to an exceedingly high mountain ( I can imagine!) and shown all the nations of the earth. Was he then able to sketch a map and position them all correctly?