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.
Well, it doesn’t sound like an apology to me.
Have you even read the Book of Mormon?
=- - - - - -
Over 15 times in FULL. More than most Mormons.
I am familiar with both ‘testimonies’. I am also familiar with the fact that they signed them but signed what Smith wrote and most didn’t like the wording. I am also familiar with other OUTSIDE sources that state they did not actually ‘see’ the plates, and that when they ‘hefted’ them, they were in a box covered by a cloth. Are you so ignorant that you are unaware of the full history of your church???
Hey, guys, “Mr. Three Nephites” is back!
Wow. I wish I could respond to this long post but I don’t know if has been translated correctly.
Brilliant! And perfectly stated.
You have just admitted that the testimonies of the 3 and 8 witnesses were never recounted.
- - - -
Nice try but no dice. I said they did not recount the seeing the plates with ‘spiritual eyes’. Many did recant in various amounts. Some rejoined, some considered him a fallen prophet and others started their own sects.
But most DID recant or state that they did not PHYSICALLY SEE the plates.
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.
- - - —
LYING? First off, that is against forum rules to accuse me of lying.
Second, read my tagline. I used to be LDS (for several years). The best way to combat the heresy of Mormonism is to know your Bible, the second is to know your enemy.
And I have more knowledge of the testimonies and LDS history than most Mormons, I did when I was LDS (history major) and I do now. Even my LDS friends admit that. But if it makes you feel better, go ahead and ignore facts.
“A fanciful story”? It does not tell one story. It is a compilation of narratives, preachings, letters, dialogues between persons, etc.
- - - -
It tells the ‘story’ of the religious dealings of the Lamanites and the Nephites and the supposed appearance of Christ in the Americas (where BTW He KILLED THOUSANDS).
But, again, if you prefer I will change it to ‘fanicful STORIES’.
Welcome back Kid...
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.
- - - - -
ROFLMAO. This is something good. You see, my goal is to SHRED Mormon doctrine and history. WHY? God has called me to it. WHY? So ignorant people are WARNED against joining a religion founded by Satan. I am sounding a warning call, both to those who think Mormonism is harmless and to those who are trapped in it.
Now, before you go into the standard ‘you are a mormon hater’ bit, I don’t hate Mormons. I have several LDS friends. I DO hate MormonISM. It is an evil, sadistic, and damnable heresy that leads people to Hell and you better believe I will fight it with my last breath. I am COMMANDED to do so by God.
2 Corinthians 11:12-13
12. And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about.
13. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ.
And before you start with “you couldn’t live the gospel so you left’, I will inform you that
I had a VERY STRONG LDS testimony
I was good LDS
I didn’t leave because I couldn’t ‘live the standards’
I was temple worthy
I didn’t leave because I wanted to sin
I was a model LDS ‘molly mormon’.
I left because I found out the LDS church was a lie.
I find it amusing you are accusing ME of being shallow and ignorant when it is YOU that have produced nothing of substance.
Now, next topic?
Don’t make it personal, fair warning.
And your comments to nana are uncalled for.
So, what exactly IS your faith since you are so insulting of ‘born agains’?
pure evil placemarker
I wish I could respond to this long post but I don’t know if has been translated correctly.
- - - - -
Oh Snap!
Words like "false" "error" "wrong" "misleading" are not making it personal.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.
So because the witnesses testified on one occassion to the credibility of JS and later they become disenchanted, for some reason, they recant and now you discount their testimony?
That’s rich. Their first testimony is fine by you as a matter of convenience but their later recanting their testimony is only indicative of a fissure in their morals?
Come on and breathe the air....it’s fine and the sky is blue on this planet...
Seriously, how does one(not saying you) but, how does one explain both testimonies and upon examination which side should one reasonably conclude is correct(in terms of their testimony and recanting)?
thanks
“Crazy”?
Why that nutty woman is the sanest I have met ever...
That is true but what subject do you want to discuss?
LDS and Christianity or do you prefer drift along, listlessly, bringing up whatever non sequitor or shiny object that catches your eye?
Wait...
I was under the impression you were a lying, liar and lying with dogs is what gave you fleece? /S LOL
Wait...
I was under the impression you were a lying, liar and lying with dogs is how you got fleeced? /S LOL
Ooopsie
fixed LOL
long night, Vendome? LOL.
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.