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.
:)
I’ll make it simple for you. See post 380. The reason I think there was an apology is probably because there WAS an apology.
If you and others think it insufficient? Fine. Call Salt Lake.
Cover-Up
The Mormon efforts to cover-up the details and white-wash the massacre continues even today. In March of 2000 the Salt Lake Tribune told of the accidental unearthing of “the skeletal remains of at least 29 slain emigrants” at Mountain Meadows in Southern Utah. (Salt Lake Tribune, March 13, 2000, p. A1)
Scientists wanted to do a full study of the remains. However, Gov. Mike Leavitt, a descendent of one of the participants of the massacre, “encouraged state officials to quickly rebury the remains, EVEN THOUGH THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW WAS UNFINISHED.... the governor’s intercession was one of many dramas played out last summer, all serving to underscore Mountain Meadows’ place as the Bermuda Triangle of Utah’s historical and theological landscape. The end result may be another sad chapter in the massacre’s legacy of bitterness, denial and suspicion. (Salt Lake Tribune, March 12, 2000, p. A-1)
A rushed examination of the bones prior to reburial in 2000 showed:
At least five adults had gunshot exit wounds in the posterior area of the cranium — a clear indication some were shot while facing their killers....Women also were shot in the head at close range....At least one youngster, believed to be about 10 to 12 years old, was killed by a gunshot to the top of the head. ... Virtually all of the “post-cranial” (from the head down) bones displayed extensive carnivore damage, confirming written accounts that bodies were left on the killing field to be gnawed by wolves and coyotes. (Salt Lake Tribune, March 13, 2000, p. A-5)
The Salt Lake Tribune quoted the following from Gene Sessions, president of the Mountain Meadows Association:
It raises the old question of whether Brigham Young ordered the massacre and whether Mormons do terrible things because they think their leaders want them to do terrible things. (Salt Lake Tribune, Mar. 14, 2000, p. A-4)
The paper went on to report:
Noted Mormon writer Levi Peterson has tried to explain the difficulty that Mormons and their church face in confronting the atrocity of Mountain Meadows.
“If good Mormons committed the massacre, if prayerful leaders ordered it, if apostles and a prophet knew about it and later sacrificed John D. Lee, then the sainthood of even the modern church seems tainted,” he has written. “Where is the moral superiority of Mormonism, where is the assurance that God has made Mormons his new chosen people?” ...
But acknowledging any complicity in Mountain Meadows’ macabre past is fundamentally problematic for the modern church.
“The massacre has left the Mormon Church on the horns of a dilemma,” says Utah historian Will Bagley, author of a forthcoming book on Mountain Meadows. “It can’t acknowledge its historic involvement in a mass murder, and if it can’t accept its accountability, it can’t repent.” (Salt Lake Tribune, March 14, 2000, p. A-4)
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no98.htm#After%20the%20Massacre
Check date of article. March 2000.
Again, apology made Sept. 12, 2007.
Not a question of whether apology made or not. It WAS.
If you and others deem it insufficient? Fine.
Ok, D whatever you say.
If you and others deem it insufficient? Fine.
________________________________________________
and if the innocent unarmed men women children and tiny babies who were senselessly buthchered that day deem it insufficient ???
Will that be FINE too ???
Their lives were snuffed out...
They were just passing through on their way to a new kife in California ...
some already had homes and farms to go too...
they were conservative Christian Americans, good God fearing folk, traveling through their own country...
and they were set upon and ambushed and treachously betrayed and murdered by religious ritual.....
it was such an act of terrorism it has been deemed the first 9/11..
and for 150 years the mormons covered up the hideous crimes
A criminal “regrets” even “profoundly regrets” that hes been found out and found guilty...
only truly repentant people are SORRY and they make retribution...
To this day there has been no retribution...
None of the the many thousands of dollars stolen was ever paid back, the 1000 head of cattle and the 300 blood hoses not paod for, the 40 good wagans not paid for, the tens of thousands of dollars od ransome money that was paid to the murderer and thief and kidnapper Brigham young was never paid back..all the clothes and house hold belongings were never given back, the fancy carriage that Brigham young stole and drove around in was never given bacvk...
and the 17 children who were stolen away and kidnapped after watching their parents murdered in front of their eyes were not returned until the US government met their kidnappers terms and paid the son of perdition baggard, Brigham Young another $10,000
None of that is FINE...
You really are an ignorant person. At NO time have I tried to justify what happened at Mountain Meadow, nor would I. And you know that. So stop trying to deceive people with your obsessive-compulsive disorder.
I do not wish to be a part of your delusional schemes.
Have you even read the Book of Mormon? In every copy are tesimonies of three witnesses and testimonies of eight witnesses. Are you so ignorant that you don't know that only the three describe in their testimony spiritual experiences? Have you never read the testimony of the eight, which describes purely physical handling, hefting, and visual examination of the writings on the plates?
They never recanted THAT part. But most of them DID recant and say that Smith was either a ‘fallen prophet’ or not a prophet at all.
Wow! You have just admitted that the testimonies of the 3 and 8 witnesses were never recounted. Then to top it off, you admit that many of them later became disenchanted with the prophet, which would provide ample excuse for their recanting their testimonies. The fact that they did not under those crcumstances only adds to the soberness of their testimonies.
Finally, Richard Lloyd Anderson’s 1981 book Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses is typical LDS faith promoting history and not considered a serious scholarly work.
Again, you have played right into the hands of those who believe that the Book of Mormon is true. Anderson's book is thoroughly researched and documented, and takes into consideration allegations against the witnesses. This leads me to state the obvious: no one hating the Book of Mormon has produced an investigation of the witnesses that is as honest and open-minded as Anderson's, which may end up being the definitive work on the subject, even for those opposed to the Book of Mormon.
Come back and play when you have REAL scholarship to show me.
I have come back, not to play, but to point out the shallowness of your approach. I don't think that you are coming off very well, even to those who hate the Book of Mormon and wish that it did not exist.
BTW, I have read the BoM cover to cover at least 15 times (more than most LDS I know).
When you display such ignorance of the testimonies of the 3 and 8 witnesses, I find it difficult to believe that you have read the Book of Mormon 15 times. Anyone who hates the book as much as you would not want to waste one's time reading it more than once! So I think that you are lying.
What is wrong with it is it is a fanciful story (with WAAAAYYY to many ‘and it came to pass’es) that tries to pass itself off as a companion to the Bible and will lead many to Hell.
"A fanciful story"? It does not tell one story. It is a compilation of narratives, preachings, letters, dialogues between persons, etc.
Let's see, that makes me 2 for 2.
In your own mind only. How pitiful!
Next subject?
As if all the other Book of Mormon haters are cheering you on as their champion. I don't think that others are satisfied with your high-toned, but incredibly shallow rants. May God lead you to find something good to build up, instead of only wishing to tear down what you have ignorantly designated as evil.
You really are an ignorant person
_________________________________________
Oh that really goes along with
“WE ARE SO SINCERELY AND HUMBLY SORRY”
I do not wish to be part of your delusional schemes. Sell crazy somewhere else.
Ok Bye then
So sorry you have to leave so soon...
Just when we were having fun...
Maybe next time when you can drop into the Religion forum...
Ok then; how about. "With no TEMPLE in which to perform the BLOOD sacrifices, the JEWs have been doing without for about 2000 years.
I promise not to serve GOAT!
But...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WudBfRa0ETw
I hope nothing gets lost in the...
TRANSLATION!
A horse-drawn wagon leads descendants carrying banners with the Mountain Meadows Massacre victim's famly names to an event marking the 150th anniversary of the Mountain Meadows Massacre at the memorial site near Enterprise.
At the EVENT, the names were used in a SACRED MORMON ceremony known as 'Baptism for the Dead'.
“We don’t use the word ‘apology,’” Church spokesman Mark Tuttle told AP reporter Paul Foy. “We used ‘profound regret.’”
Dang!
NOW what to believe??
And there are OTHER books extant that show a bit of, shall we say, a DIFFERENT story.
So that’s where the expression “get your goat” came from.
I remember the episode! TZ was one of the most original shows on TV. Talent is a rare thing indeed.
“...instead of only wishing to tear down what you have ignorantly designated as evil. “
Oh, no. It’s as evil as the day is long.
It denies the God of the Bible and makes him a man who became God. It also demotes him to one of trillions of gods
in the mormonic pantheon of gods.
It denies His son and makes Him into a creature.
It denies the Gospel of Grace and replaces it with works.
It claims to “restore the Church”, while doing all those things.
Pure evil.
Those same witnesses had to run for their lives because Joey Smith and Sydney Rigdon wanted to kill them...
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
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.