Setting The Record Straight

[livy111us]

In his recent blog post, Matt Roper outlines he truth about Jonathan Neville and his shady dealings. Neville intentionally misrepresented Matthew Roper in order to play the victim card and attempt to show that they were avoiding a word-print study of the Sept/Oct 1842 Times and Seasons articles which place The BOM in Mesoamerica, and included Benjamin Winchester in this study. Neville wanted to portray them as men who who were so entrenched in their beliefs that they were willfully ignoring "proof" that it was not Joseph Smith who wrote them. This post is quite telling of the character of Neville. 

http://etherscave.blogspot.com/2015/09/setting-record-straight.html

[smac97]

A few thoughts:

1. I believe that the geography of The Book of Mormon is A) an important topic that B) merits serious study, research, analysis and discussion; however C) we currently lack substantive and clear revealed information about this topic, such that D) the Church has not presented an official position on the particulars of this topic (other than that the events took place, as this article puts it, "somewhere in the Americas"), which has E) left the Saints at liberty to explore various theories about this topic, such as the "hemispheric" theory, the "Heartland" model advanced by Meldrum, the "Limited Geography" model  advanced by Sorenson, Nibley, Roper, etc.

 

2. There is, unfortunately, too much antipathy amongst the Saints regarding these theories.  My impression (and I am open to correction here) is that some of the advocates of the Heartland model, including but not limited to Meldrum, seem to lash out personally at those who disagree with them.  See, for example, the link in the OP, and also this article by Matthew Roper.

 

3. For me, I find the Mesoamerican setting espoused by Sorenson to be the most plausible setting for The Book of Mormon.  However, I recognize that reasonable minds can disagree about such things.  I think we need to give each other some substantial "wiggle room" about such things until such time as we receive further light and knowledge through revelation on this matter.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited September 28, 2015 by smac97

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed.

[The Nehor]

So when do we form a mob and lynch the Heartlander Heretics?

[theplains]

A few thoughts:

1. ...  D) the Church has not presented an official position on the particulars of this topic (other than that the events took place ... "somewhere in the Americas"), which has E) left the Saints at liberty to explore various theories about this topic  ... .

 

See Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 3, by former LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith.  Early

leaders taught the location of some places. Manti was in Missouri and the Hill Cumorah (where

the final battle of the Nephites/Lamanites and the Jaredites earlier) was in New York State. Also

read the April 1928 General Conference report.

 

Regards,

Jim

[strappinglad]

Maybe we need to form a committee of likeminded folk who approach the Brethren with the idea that they make it a priority to petition for revelation to settle the debate once and for all with clear locations etc. Of course, if no such revelation is forthcoming, we could have protest rallies at temple square and twitter flutters to stir up support. Some of us might have to give up our membership, but it will all be worth it when the announcement finally comes that Zarahemla is actually in ( fill in the blank ).

[smac97]

See Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 3, by former LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith.  Early

leaders taught the location of some places. Manti was in Missouri and the Hill Cumorah (where

the final battle of the Nephites/Lamanites and the Jaredites earlier) was in New York State. Also

read the April 1928 General Conference report.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

Seen it.  I've also seen this (Deseret News article):

 

The Book of Mormon geography conference was held at Brigham Young Academy on May 23-24, 1903. But the advice President Joseph F. Smith gave at that conference 107 years ago could apply equally to current disputes over Book of Mormon geography.

 

"President Smith spoke briefly," the Deseret News account summarized, "and expressed the idea that the question of the city (of Zarahemla) was one of interest certainly, but if it could not be located the matter was not of vital importance, and if there were differences of opinion on the question it would not affect the salvation of the people; and he advised against students considering it of such vital importance as the principles of the Gospel."

 

And this (Encyclopedia of Mormonism):

 

Church leadership officially and consistently distances itself from issues regarding Book of Mormon geography.

 

And this (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual):

 

Explain that the Church has no official position about Book of Mormon geography except that the events occurred in the Americas.

 

And this (January 2004 First Presidency Message):

 

President George Q. Cannon (1827–1901), First Counselor in the First Presidency, stated: “The Book of Mormon is not a geographical primer. It was not written to teach geographical truths. What is told us of the situation of the various lands or cities … is usually simply an incidental remark connected with the doctrinal or historical portions of the work.” 

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[JAHS]

The Times and Seasons article: No 23 - Zarhemla

 

http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/9200

Edited September 28, 2015 by JAHS

[Robert F. Smith]

.......................................................... Manti was in Missouri a...........................................

................................

I thought that Manti was in southern Utah.  There's even a temple there, Jim.

[Robert F. Smith]

Maybe we need to form a committee of likeminded folk who approach the Brethren with the idea that they make it a priority to petition for revelation to settle the debate once and for all with clear locations etc. Of course, if no such revelation is forthcoming, we could have protest rallies at temple square and twitter flutters to stir up support. Some of us might have to give up our membership, but it will all be worth it when the announcement finally comes that Zarahemla is actually in ( fill in the blank ).

Hey, this is something substantial that the New Order Mormons could sink their teeth into.

[Kenngo1969]

Maybe we need to form a committee of likeminded folk who approach the Brethren with the idea that they make it a priority to petition for revelation to settle the debate once and for all with clear locations etc. Of course, if no such revelation is forthcoming, we could have protest rallies at temple square and twitter flutters to stir up support. Some of us might have to give up our membership, but it will all be worth it when the announcement finally comes that Zarahemla is actually in ( fill in the blank ).

We could stage scenes from the Book of Mormon (er, the actual book, not the musical ) on the grounds of the Conference Center during Conference.  I call dibs on Nephi!

[Kenngo1969]

I thought that Manti was in southern Utah.  There's even a temple there, Jim.

Meh, closer to central.  (But I don't want to get into any debates about geography, or anything ... )

[cinepro]

I mentioned Neville's book (and the affect it was having on a family member) a few months ago here.

 

 

Maybe we need to form a committee of likeminded folk who approach the Brethren with the idea that they make it a priority to petition for revelation to settle the debate once and for all with clear locations etc. Of course, if no such revelation is forthcoming, we could have protest rallies at temple square and twitter flutters to stir up support. Some of us might have to give up our membership, but it will all be worth it when the announcement finally comes that Zarahemla is actually in ( fill in the blank ).

 

By the standards of Joseph Smith, getting a "thus Saith the Lord" revelation on the subject of Book of Mormon geography would be one of the easiest and most common things I can imagine.  Just thumb through the Doctrine and Covenants and look at all the different types of things God was revealing, with precision and authority.  Even ancient geography. 

 

It's not surprising that modern LDS don't expect such a revelation from President Monson.  But it is a little sad to think how far we've come.

[The Nehor]

I mentioned Neville's book (and the affect it was having on a family member) a few months ago here.

 

By the standards of Joseph Smith, getting a "thus Saith the Lord" revelation on the subject of Book of Mormon geography would be one of the easiest and most common things I can imagine.  Just thumb through the Doctrine and Covenants and look at all the different types of things God was revealing, with precision and authority.  Even ancient geography. 

 

It's not surprising that modern LDS don't expect such a revelation from President Monson.  But it is a little sad to think how far we've come.

 

The problem Joseph Smith had was that he got revelation, some of it unsought and some of it in answers to questions but sometimes he got told off for asking. I think of God telling Joseph Smith to stop bothering him about when the Second Coming would hit.

[Duncan]

So when do we form a mob and lynch the Heartlander Heretics?

 

 

meet us outback behind the lard cans in 20 minutes, bring your toque-it's chilly!

[strappinglad]

I am 95% sure that the Lord will never reveal the location of the Nephite lands. We may get a few pieces of reasonable evidence but no more. Were indisputable evidence to arrive there would be no excuse left .That Joseph( or anyone else ) could have made the whole story up would no longer be possible. Unlike the Bible , there would be only one way for Joseph to have come by the BoM then, and that is the way that he said, an angel.

Jesus spoke in parables for a reason. I think that reason is so people are not painted into a corner. Condemnation comes fairly quickly following a sure knowledge , if that knowledge is not acted upon properly.

[theplains]

I thought that Manti was in southern Utah.  There's even a temple there, Jim.

 

Yes.  That is the modern city.  The city of Manti mentioned in the Book of Mormon was

taught to be in Missouri (page 239).

 

Thanks,

Jim

[cinepro]

I am 95% sure that the Lord will never reveal the location of the Nephite lands. We may get a few pieces of reasonable evidence but no more. Were indisputable evidence to arrive there would be no excuse left .That Joseph( or anyone else ) could have made the whole story up would no longer be possible. Unlike the Bible , there would be only one way for Joseph to have come by the BoM then, and that is the way that he said, an angel.

Jesus spoke in parables for a reason. I think that reason is so people are not painted into a corner. Condemnation comes fairly quickly following a sure knowledge , if that knowledge is not acted upon properly.

 

First, you are drastically overestimating what "makes" people believe or disbelieve something. 

 

Second, that's actually different than what we're talking about.  It would be no different than when Joseph Smith revealed that Spring Hill is actually Adam-ondi-Ahman, the place where ancient Adam (presumably the real guy, not the nebulous myth) will come back and meet with his posterity.  As far as I can tell, there haven't been people who are forced to join the LDS church based on the revelation of this location.

 

Likewise, President Monson could stand in conference and say "Brothers and Sisters, I recently received the following revelation from the Lord, and would like to share it with you.

 

"Behold, thus saith The Lord.  As it has been much asked in these days, and it has weighed upon the minds of mine people, behold I say unto you that it shall be known in which part of the land didst live mine the Nephites of old.  Verily, that city which was anciently known as Zarahemla is now known as Montrose, in the state of Iowa.  Verily, the battles between the Lamanites and Nephites, yea, even unto the destruction of the Nephites save it were for Moroni, didst occur in the place known as New York.   Let your minds be at peace on this matter; be faithful until I come, for I come quickly; and my reward is with me to recompense every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega. Amen."

 

It takes about 45 seconds to read that.  More time is spent each conference telling jokes and talking about how magnificent the choir is.  I suspect there is a good reason we don't expect that President Monson (or any future prophet) would actually ever receive such a revelation, but that doesn't mean he couldn't, or that Joseph Smith didn't do it all the time.

Edited September 28, 2015 by cinepro

[theplains]

 

Seen it.  I've also seen this (Deseret News article):

 

The Book of Mormon geography conference was held at Brigham Young Academy on May 23-24, 1903. But the advice President Joseph F. Smith gave at that conference 107 years ago could apply equally to current disputes over Book of Mormon geography.

 

"President Smith spoke briefly," the Deseret News account summarized, "and expressed the idea that the question of the city (of Zarahemla) was one of interest certainly, but if it could not be located the matter was not of vital importance, and if there were differences of opinion on the question it would not affect the salvation of the people; and he advised against students considering it of such vital importance as the principles of the Gospel."

 

And this (Encyclopedia of Mormonism):

 

Church leadership officially and consistently distances itself from issues regarding Book of Mormon geography.

 

And this (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual):

 

Explain that the Church has no official position about Book of Mormon geography except that the events occurred in the Americas.

 

And this (January 2004 First Presidency Message):

 

President George Q. Cannon (1827–1901), First Counselor in the First Presidency, stated: “The Book of Mormon is not a geographical primer. It was not written to teach geographical truths. What is told us of the situation of the various lands or cities … is usually simply an incidental remark connected with the doctrinal or historical portions of the work.” 

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

 

I recall seeing that too.  Even though the LDS Church does not have an official position about

BOM geography as a whole (in our current era), we still have the actions of individual LDS presidents

in the past in issuing statements in a book and calling it "Doctrines of Salvation" or speaking words

at General Conference about specific BOM places.

 

If would be interesting to see the author of the BOM Seminary Teacher Manual making a trip back

in time and telling then-president Joseph Fielding Smith that 'the church in the future will have no

official position about BOM geography no matter what you say now Mr. President.'

 

The Jehovah's Witnesses also go through similar things with some of their teachings.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Russell C McGregor]

I recall seeing that too.  Even though the LDS Church does not have an official position about

BOM geography as a whole (in our current era), we still have the actions of individual LDS presidents

in the past in issuing statements in a book and calling it "Doctrines of Salvation" or speaking words

at General Conference about specific BOM places.

 

If would be interesting to see the author of the BOM Seminary Teacher Manual making a trip back

in time and telling then-president Joseph Fielding Smith that 'the church in the future will have no

official position about BOM geography no matter what you say now Mr. President.'

 

The Jehovah's Witnesses also go through similar things with some of their teachings.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

You aren't trying to tell us(!) what our(!) Church teaches are you, Jim?

 

Or pretend that a book written by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve was magically and retrospectively transmogrified into the product of a President of the Church when he took up that office sixteen years later??

 

If it wasn't a terribly uncharitable thing for me to say, I could point out that this is anti-Mormonism 101.

 

But I know that wounds your terribly tender feelings, so I won't.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[Scott Lloyd]

A few thoughts:

1. I believe that the geography of The Book of Mormon is A) an important topic that B) merits serious study, research, analysis and discussion; however C) we currently lack substantive and clear revealed information about this topic, such that D) the Church has not presented an official position on the particulars of this topic (other than that the events took place, as this article puts it, "somewhere in the Americas"), which has E) left the Saints at liberty to explore various theories about this topic, such as the "hemispheric" theory, the "Heartland" model advanced by Meldrum, the "Limited Geography" model  advanced by Sorenson, Nibley, Roper, etc.

 

2. There is, unfortunately, too much antipathy amongst the Saints regarding these theories.  My impression (and I am open to correction here) is that some of the advocates of the Heartland model, including but not limited to Meldrum, seem to lash out personally at those who disagree with them.  See, for example, the link in the OP, and also this article by Matthew Roper.

 

3. For me, I find the Mesoamerican setting espoused by Sorenson to be the most plausible setting for The Book of Mormon.  However, I recognize that reasonable minds can disagree about such things.  I think we need to give each other some substantial "wiggle room" about such things until such time as we receive further light and knowledge through revelation on this matter.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

This is sound advice of course.

 

But it has been my observation that the antipathy is generated mainly from the "Heartlander" camp more so than from others. They are the ones calling into question the faith and testimonies of those who don't go along with their pet theories.

[Russell C McGregor]

See Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 3, by former LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith.  Early

leaders taught the location of some places. Manti was in Missouri and the Hill Cumorah (where

the final battle of the Nephites/Lamanites and the Jaredites earlier) was in New York State. Also

read the April 1928 General Conference report.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

Doctrines of Salvation was published in 1954. Joseph Fielding Smith became President of the Church in 1970. Neither his (much later) calling, nor any other event, has ever canonised that work.

 

And waving a hand at an entire volume does not document a claim. Actual quotations are needed.

[Kenngo1969]

... By the standards of Joseph Smith, getting a "thus Saith the Lord" revelation on the subject of Book of Mormon geography would be one of the easiest and most common things I can imagine.  Just thumb through the Doctrine and Covenants and look at all the different types of things God was revealing, with precision and authority.  Even ancient geography. 

 

It's not surprising that modern LDS don't expect such a revelation from President Monson.  But it is a little sad to think how far we've come.

Book of Mormon geography?  Meh.  Interesting, but not essential.  Other things, such as the Book of Lehi, what's on the Brass Plates, and what's in the Sealed Portion?  Likely much more interesting, and more likely to have an indelible impact on My Eternal Soul than Book of Mormon geography ever will.    Your mileage probably varies.  To each, his own.  I wish you well. 

[strappinglad]

You missed my point cinepro. By indisputable evidence I don't mean a revelation by the Prophet. I mean archeological evidence of places called by the names from the BoM. I mean records found in caves that are translated and found to verify times, places, and people from the BoM . From your scenario, after the Prophet gives his revelation, subsequent diggings unearth clear evidence of Nephite inhabitation etc. Sure people would still find reasons to disbelieve because we have folks who deny the moon landings and accept a flat earth. Humans are perverse that way.

[theplains]

You aren't trying to tell us(!) what our(!) Church teaches are you, Jim?

 

Or pretend that a book written by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve was magically and retrospectively transmogrified into the product of a President of the Church when he took up that office sixteen years later??

 

Kindly read the Preface in all three volumes of Doctrines of Salvation. You'll gain a different

perspective.

 

Regards,

Jim