If you are interested what we actually believe about the issue, then fine, but I'm not here to banter endlessly about a non mormon’s view about my beliefs.
This will be my last post on this topic. I suggest you read a little more than the anti sites if you wish you know what we actually believe.
BYU professor Daniel C. Peterson pointed out the absurdity of this argument:
To suggest that Joseph Smith knew the precise location of Jesus’ baptism by John (”in Bethabara, beyond Jordan” (1 Ne. 10:9) but hadn't a clue about the famous town of Christ's birth is so improbable as to be ludicrous.
Do the skeptics seriously mean to suggest that the Book of Mormon's Bible-drenched author (or authors) missed one of the most obvious facts about the most popular story in the Bible — something known to every child and Christmas caroler? Do they intend to say that a clever fraud who could write a book displaying so wide an array of subtly authentic Near Eastern and biblical cultural and literary traits as the Book of Mormon does was nonetheless so stupid as to claim, before a Bible-reading public, that Jesus was born in the city of Jerusalem? As one anti-Mormon author has pointed out, “Every schoolboy and schoolgirl knows Christ was born in Bethlehem.” [Langfield, 53.] Exactly! It is virtually certain, therefore, that Alma 7:10 was foreign to Joseph Smith's preconceptions. “The land of Jerusalem” is not the sort of thing the Prophet would likely have invented, precisely for the same reason it bothers uninformed critics of the Book of Mormon.[1]
It is important to note what Alma's words were. He did not claim Jesus would be born in the city of Jerusalem, but “at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.”
Thus, the Book of Mormon makes a distinction here between a city and the land associated with a city. It does this elsewhere as well:
the land (Alma 2:15) and city(Alma 6:1) of Zarahemla;
the land and city of Nephi (Alma 47:20).
This is consistent with the usage of the ancient Middle East. El Amarna letter #287 reports that “a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah.”[2] (One over-confident 19th century critic blithely assured his readers that “There is no such land. No part of Palestine bears the nameof Jerusalem, except the city itself.”[3] While this was perhaps true in the 19th century, it was not true anciently. A supposed “howler” turns into evidence for the text's antiquity.
Thus, Joseph Smith gets it exactly right — the town of Bethlehem is in the “land of Jerusalem.” In fact, Bethlehem is only 5 miles south of Jerusalem: definitely “in the land,” especially from the perspective of Alma, a continent away. Even locals considered Hebron, twenty five miles from Bethlehem, to be in the “land of Jerusalem.”
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Jerusalem_vs_Bethlehem
I'm out. Do what you will.
Why do you guys keep saying this over and over and over???
How many times do you and yours have to be told that the bulk of us have read LDS MATERIAL, not just "propaganda" and such from so called "Anti" sites?
Repeating it often enough it becomes true? Is that the hope, or just catch the odd lurker unaware?
As it is there are a number of folks here exposing the truth about Mormonism that are former LDS members who studied the same Sunday school and "seminary" lessons you did, from the same material. The majority of the rest of us have copies of Mormon works personally on our shelves or have access LDS.ORG and such for the material we reference.
There are times in the interest of speed or due to some very good scholarship and materials such as charts and illustrations the sites exposing Mormonism "issues" are used in reference, but again since we are familiar with the first source material this second source material stands to the scrutiny in the face of LDS references.
So again, unless it is a trick (safe bet) stop acting as if you are ignorant of this fact.
Alma 7:10, ( a verse from the Book of Mormon itself, says )"10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God."
So is your own BoM a good enough source?
Please, if you're going to post what Mormons believe about Bethlem/Jerusalem from a Mormon site, don't bother pinging me; either.
“It is important to note what Alma’s words were. He did not claim Jesus would be born in the city of Jerusalem, but “at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.””
Makes perfect sense to me!
God EXACTLY knew the location where Christ would be born. EXACTLY - down to the specific clan of Jesse.
Alma, written by Satan, only knew it was somewhere around Jerusalem, kinda within a few hundred square miles or so. He was not privy to the details of the Savior’s birth, but had a general idea of what God was up to.
“Thus, Joseph Smith gets it exactly right — the town of Bethlehem is in the “land of Jerusalem.” In fact, Bethlehem is only 5 miles south of Jerusalem: definitely “in the land,” especially from the perspective of Alma, a continent away.”
Actually, Joe Smith Fail, again. Residents knew the difference. God KNEW the difference. Had the mormonic verses been actually God inspired, Alma/Joe/Satan would have gotten it precisely right too.
Why didn’t he/they/his darkness know what God said with such precision?
ampu