Posted on 05/27/2010 6:44:33 AM PDT by Colofornian
The discussion on Book of Mormon geography was getting heated. Scholars gathered in Provo, Utah, to discuss their theories about where the events described in the Book of Mormon took place. Some placed the Nephite capital city Zarahemla in Mesoamerica, others in South America. Others argued for a setting in the American heartland.
The president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attended the two-day Book of Mormon convention. Although he found the discussion interesting, he was obviously concerned that people were getting a little too worked up about their geographic theories. He decided to intervene.
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."
More recently, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism described how "Church leadership officially and consistently distances itself from issues regarding Book of Mormon geography."
But the lack of an official position hasn't squelched interest. The subject attracts highly trained archaeologists and scholars and informed — and not-so-informed — amateurs and enthusiasts. Books, lectures and even Book of Mormon lands tours abound.
But something is rotten in Zarahemla — wherever it may be.
In the middle of what could be a fun and intellectually exciting pursuit similar to archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann's famous search for the lost city of Troy, there are accusations of disloyalty tantamount to apostasy.
In one corner is the more-established idea of a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon. This theory places the events of the book in a limited geographic setting that is about the same size as ancient Israel. The location is in southern Mexico and Guatemala. The person most often associated with this theory is John L. Sorenson, a retired professor of anthropology at BYU, and the author of "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" and a series of articles on Book of Mormon geography that ran in the Ensign magazine in September and October 1984. A new book, tentatively titled "Mormon's Codex," is in the process of being published.
In the other corner is the challenger, a new theory that places Book of Mormon events in a North American "heartland" setting. Like the Mesoamerican theory, it also is limited in area — but not quite as limited. Its symbolic head is Rod L. Meldrum and, more recently, Bruce H. Porter. Meldrum and Porter are the co-authors of the book "Prophecies and Promises," which promotes the heartland setting.
It wouldn't be hard to predict that some friction might come about from competing theories — that healthy sparring would occur with arguments and counter-arguments. But it has gone beyond that.
The source of the animosity comes from the heartland theory's mantra: "Joseph knew."
Joseph Smith made several statements that can be interpreted to have geographic implications. Proponents of a North American setting see these statements as authoritative and based in revelation. Mesoamerican theorists think that Joseph Smith's ideas about geography expanded over time and included approval of at least some connection to Central America.
To the heartlander, Joseph's knowledge about Book of Mormon locations is seen as proof of his divine calling and a testament to his being the chosen translator/expert of the book. Joseph didn't just know; he knew everything. This position, however, leaves little room for other opinions — or for charity.
"The way I look at Joseph Smith's statements is that he either knew or he didn't know. If he knew, he knew by revelation. And if he didn't know, you've got to ask yourself why he said the things that he said," Porter said. "If he didn't know, was he trying to show off? If he really didn't know, why was he telling people?
"My feeling is that Joseph Smith did not lie," Porter said.
If you don't agree with this line of reasoning, by implication, you think that Joseph lied.
"My authority is Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon," Porter said. "Most of your Mesoamerican theorists, their authority is John Sorenson and Matthew Roper. They picked those as their authority at the neglect of Joseph Smith."
Matthew P. Roper, a research scholar at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute Of Religious Scholarship, naturally doesn't like this characterization. "They seem to be trying to elevate a question of lesser importance, Book of Mormon geography, to the level of the doctrines of the church," Roper said. "And even though they give lip service to things like they know the church has not given an official position, they turn around and say, 'All these people are dismissing Joseph Smith.' "
It is somewhat ironic that believing that Joseph did not "know" also supports Joseph as a prophet. The more Joseph's assumptions about Book of Mormon geography prove to be wrong, the greater a testimony that he did not write the book himself. "We assume," Roper said, "that since Joseph Smith was the translator of the Book of Mormon, and that it was translated by the gift and power of God, that he would know everything about the book that an author would. I would submit that the two are not the same thing. I could translate the 'Wars of Caesar' and not know anything about ancient Gaul or the different tribes."
When Meldrum's theories first became popularized through firesides and a DVD he produced, the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) took notice and responded with gusto.
"The way he said things, they attack that more than they attack the evidence that he presented," Porter said.
Scott Gordon, president of FAIR, would not disagree. "We view this as a steadying-of-the-ark issue. We really don't care where he picks for his theory on where the Book of Mormon can take place," Gordon said. "What we care about that he is implying that the church is not following the teachings of Joseph Smith. Which means the church leadership, the prophet — everything is not following. And we think that is a very, very dangerous position."
"They are getting really worried because they are seeing this is becoming a movement. That's their words," Meldrum said. "They are just saying it's a movement because they are getting a lot of flak from people who are seeing the DVD and the information and thinking, 'You know what, this makes a lot of sense.' "
But supporters also see the heartland theory as an inspired movement that will transform the LDS Church: "(V)ery few people out there fully grasp the magnitude of this movement and the powerful influence that it is having and the sweeping nature of its message," wrote one prominent supporter. "It will sweep the church and most LDS will not even understand what happened until it's past. … Time is our friend."
A movement — about geography?
Historian Ronald O. Barney has seen similar attitudes in some people supporting Mesoamerica. One person described a particular Mesoamerican book as "life-transforming" and that the book "changed the way I think about everything."
Life-transforming?
"People are hanging their faith on evidence of Book of Mormon peoples," Barney said.
"I just think that this way of thinking about our religion is such a waste of time," Barney said, "It almost suggests we don't trust the Holy Ghost. Not only are we worried that he won't reveal to people the truthfulness of the book, but we want to augment it — even if we have to bend and distort — so that there can be no mistake about its truthfulness."
Meldrum said he doesn't hang his testimony on the heartland theory.
"I don't know that this geography is true. I've said that many times and I want to make sure that that's clear. If President Monson was to tomorrow say, 'You know what? I've had a revelation and the Book of Mormon occurred in Indonesia,' you know what? I'm with him." Meldrum said with a laugh.
John L. Sorenson stands by the Mesoamerican theory, but also the Prophet.
"(Geography) wasn't very important to him and he didn't know much about it," Sorenson said. "Joseph knew what he knew — and what he knew was far more important than geography."
Joseph's nephew, President Joseph F. Smith, would probably agree.
What is it that you want?
Will it make you "feel better" to know that there are Christians who are scoundrels.
Does it make what Joseph Smith did somehow more acceptable to you?
On FR it has been made clear to you (or so I thought) that Christians will not deny there are scoundrels in their ranks, while lds do whatever they can to either cover up the actions of lds leaders or deny the severity of these actions or attack the poster and their motives.
So D where do you stand and what is it that you really want?
I do this for your benefit as you are deflecting and not responding to the questions I asked.
What is it that you really want?
It’s those security cameras - they make me LOOK bald!
Maybe they weren’t Christians?
- - - -
I believe many of the victims are Christians, but just as many, if not more, are lonely people trying to grasp on to anything.
They come to see these people as their ‘saviors’ rather than pursue a REAL relationship with Christ.
Part of why I got involved in the watchdog group was I briefly worked for a ‘pastor’ (at a school he ran) who I soon found out wasn’t a Christian, but a con man. He scammed and swindled his congregation, his student’s families, everyone. After he got kicked out of the Baptist church, he became a ‘Messianic rabbi’ and started the scam all over again.
And I have been working and doing battle on exposing him for several years. I dog him to the point that he has publicly said I am not a Christian.
His victims (and I would say this is true of televangelists and other con men as well - including J. Smith) fall/fell into several categories: True believers who can’t imagine that anyone would use Christ to ‘con’ them, those who put their faith in ‘religion’ rather than a relationship with Jesus, people who think he has ‘the magic answer’ to health and wealth, and those who think he is a ‘shortcut’ to God.
That there are wolves in sheep’s clothing (false prophets) should not surprise us. Christ told us there would be.
And it can be difficult to be a ‘cynical Christian’.
Right now? A cold beer and a burger...
I don’t know that I want anything.
It little matters whether Joe Smith is acceptable to me or not. Never met the guy.
Thanx for the help./s
lol.
Thank you for number 334
It little matters whether Joe Smith is acceptable to me or not. Never met the guy.
- - - - -
I believe SVCW is under the impression (as were most of us by your early posts) that you are Mormon.
Taken from that point of view, her post makes sense.
344!
Thanks Dear...
She’s a women as well? Stumped me again!
You are welcome. :)
She’s a women as well? Stumped me again!
- - - -
LOL. It happens a lot on here. There are men who people assume are women (usually by the FR handle) and women who many assume are guys.
I once got a freepmail by a shocked freeper who said I was too ‘logical’ to be a woman. THAT was funny.
If it matters not, then why are you on this thread? It leads one to believe you are in fact looking for something.
I am not convinced that D is not lds.
I am in the dark closet, looking for the black hat, that isn’t there.
Actually, in my first post on this thread I was merely stating that the Mormans did in fact offer an apology for Mountain Meadows. To wit, I was told to “shut up.” Then was told the apology was “insincere.” Not sufficient,etc.
I have no idea why a mere statement of fact caused such angst among so many. No idea at all...
I left the thread several times. Then was summoned back, as if from afar...
Who told you to shut up? Name names.
Mormon Site Muzzles Members
Friday, May 21, 2010
By Julie M. Smith
ST. GEORGE–AP–August 10, 2010– Verna Watkins sits on her threadbare couch clutching a wrinkled tissue. Between sobs, she says, “I consider it the most sacred spiritual experience of my life . . . when the Three Nephites–divine beings–helped me change the tire on my Suburban. I spent two hours writing the story up to post to my Church’s website, and later I found out that they wouldn’t approve it. My own Church rejected the event most important to my faith.”
Ms. Watkins is one of many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints–commonly known as Mormons–who feels betrayed by their church after it launched a website earlier this summer, but then took it down after only two months. While LDS Church Public Relations officials claimed that the site was removed in anticipation of a redesign, many Church members felt that the real problem was that the website solicited personal religious feelings–what Mormons call a “testimony”–as well as statements on doctrinal matters. When these poured in, Church leaders were overwhelmed by unorthodox material and left with a dilemma: either permit the unapproved material, which violates what they consider their obligation to “keep the doctrine pure,” or disallow their own members’ beliefs. Many Mormons felt betrayed when told by their Church that their beliefs were not approved.
http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2010/05/mormon-site-muzzles-members/
To wit, I was told to “shut up.”
_______________________________________
Poor Baby...
Who told you to do that ????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.