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.
Once again;
you win...
"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated."---Joseph Knight's journal.
"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."
(History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols.(Independence, Missouri: Herald House,1951),"Last Testimony of Sister Emma [Smith Bidamon]," 3:356.
"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."
---(David Whitmer,as published in the "Kansas City Journal," June 5, 1881,and reprinted in the RLDS "Journal of History", vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.
In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints Herald, asked Whitmer if Joseph had used his "Peep stone" to do the translation. Whitmer replied:
"... he used a stone called a "Seers stone," the "Interpreters" having been taken away from him because of transgression. The "Interpreters" were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on and translate by use of a "Seers stone" which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English."
"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say 'Written,' and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."
(Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses,"reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881in Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87.)
In 1879, Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, stated:"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."
(W.W. Blair interview with Michael Morse,Saints Herald, vol. 26, no. 12June 15, 1879, pp. 190-91.)
Joseph Smith's brother William also testified to the "face in the hat" version:"The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God"("A New Witness for Christ in America,"Francis W. Kirkham, 2:417.)
"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret was the same manner as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, while the book of plates were at the same time hid in the woods."---Isaac Hale (Emma Smith's father's) affidavit, 1834.
There is no discussing things with blind idiots who will fall for such lies as the BoM.
You are the only one here who has been claiming that there were mass resurrections prior to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why? Because those familiar with the New Testament know that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was “the firstfruits of them that slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20). No man was resurrected before Jesus Christ. “And the graves were opened; and many bodeis of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves AFTER HIS RESURRECTION, and went into the holy city, and appeared uto many” (Matthew 27:52-53).
- - - -
EPIC FAIL - Matt 27 doesn’t say it was AFTER the resurrection. They didn’t appear in town until after the resurrection. Anyone familiar with the Bible knows that.
51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
And, even if it were, then perhaps I should have used TIME FRAME, which still in no way negates my statement that Christ killed tens of thousands in the BoM which is completely incongruent with the resurrections in the Middle east.
AFA, the rest are not ‘my opinions’ they are facts. Shame you can’t seem to deal with facts. Suggestion - don’t go into a legal profession.
Among the meanings of "tangible" is "touchable". Although a piece of paper with "caractors" that may have been copied from Book of Mormon plates is "touchable", it is unsatisfactory as evidence, because we do not know for sure that there is a direct connection between the "caractors" and the engravings on the Book of Mormon plates. Even if there is, we do not know whether they copy a continuous sequence of engravings, of if they were copied at random.
The most tangible evidence that the plates are real and that people saw them and their engravings and handled and hefted the plates is the testimony of the eight witnesses, printed in every copy of the Book of Mormon, because it is the sworn statement of eight real people, who never denied their testimonies. As thoroughly documented in Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses by Richard Lloyd Anderson, none of the witnesses, even those who became estranged from the church or from Joseph Smith, ever denied their printed testimonies.
Sorry Elsie, but those well-known printed testimonies that millions have read and understood have greater weight than your futile attempts to undermine them. Don't waste your living energy trying to undo what cannot be undone. The last living Book of Mormon witness, David Whitmer, who was an honorable resident of Richmond, Missouri, died affirming his testimony. Had any of the other 10 witnesses emphatically denied what they had testified to, David Whitmer would have had to deal with that in his Address to All Belivers in Christ. Instead, he sealed the truth of those testimonies in his final years. Go to Richmond, Missouri and read his gravestone and then try to deny what you see written thereon.
I pray that Christ will direct you find more satisfying occupations than badmouthing Christians who are now dwelling in His holy presence.
You do not know for sure whether of not verses 52 and 53 were meant to be a parenthetical observation. You may be reading it too hastily. From other scriptures we know that Jesus was the first fruits of those who "slept" (that is were dead) who were resurrected.
"The earth shook and the rocks split" during the time when Jesus was on the cross, during the same period when the earth was shaking and rocks splitting in Mesoamerica, according to the Book of Mormon.
Jesus Christ was the first person resurrected into eternal life. (A dead man whom Jesus raised from the dead eventually died again). It was only after Jesus was resurrected into eternal life that "many holy people who had died were raised to [eternal] life".
Thus, there were not mass resurrections before Jesus Christ rose from the dead. It might be wise for you to emphatically admit this. Otherwise, you put yourself at odds with most other Christians, who believe that Jesus was the first of all persons to be resurrected into eternal life.
“The most tangible evidence that the plates are real and that people saw them and their engravings and handled and hefted the plates is the testimony of the eight witnesses, printed in every copy of the Book of Mormon, because it is the sworn statement of eight real people, who never denied their testimonies. “
This “swearing” that they saw and hefted them is so much silliness.
Was it sworn in a court of law?
If so, where? Who was the presiding Judge or officer of the court?
If not a judge, who did they swear to? Joseph Smith, charlatan?
Was there a consequence if they falsely swore?
Did Smith pay them for their testimony?
How much were they compensated?
How do you know?
Did Smith threaten to harm them if they recanted?
How do you know?
Did David Whitmer write his own headstone, or was
it placed there by mormons?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>>>>>
As to the “swearing” of mormons, the following
testimony in a court of law, under a judge, puts
mormon swearing into perspective:
“Josiah Stowell, a Mormonite, being sworn, testified that he positively knew that said Smith never had lied to, or deceived him, and did not believe he ever tried to deceive any body else. The following questions were then asked him, to which he made the replies annexed.
“Did Smith ever tell you there was money hid in a certain glass which he mentioned?
“Yes.
“Did he tell you, you could find it by digging?
“Yes.
“Did you dig?
“Yes.
“Did you find any money?
“No.
“Did he not lie to you then, and deceive you?
“No! the money was there, but we did not get quite to it!
“How do you know it was there?
“Smith said it was!
“Addison Austin was next called upon, who testified, that at the very same time that Stowell was digging for money, he, Austin, was in company with said Smith alone, and asked him to tell him honestly whether he could see this money or not.
“Smith hesitated some time, but finally replied, “to be candid, between you and me, I cannot, any more than you or any body else; but any way to get a living.”
“Here, then, we have his own confession, that he was a vile, dishonest impostor.
“As regards the testimony of Josiah Stowell, it needs no comment. He swears positively that Smith did not lie to him. So much for a Mormon witness.”
Evangelical Magazine & Gospel Advocate Utica, N. Y., April 9, 1831.
http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1877Purp.htm
Joseph Smith claims that after he translated the plates, he returned them to the angel Moroni. Therefore, there is no way to verify the veracity of the plates or Smith's translation. Smith's only defense of his account is the eleven men who signed statements claiming to have seen the golden plates. Therefore, the credibility of Smith's account rests on the testimony of these eleven witnesses. There are three key witnesses who claim to have seen the angel show the golden plates to them. The remaining eight allege to have seen the plates but not the angel. The LDS church asserts these men never denied their testimony. However, when we examine the lives of the witnesses, we find they were untrustworthy, wavering, and gullible witnesses.
Six of the eleven witnesses, including the three key witnesses were eventually excommunicated from the church. Former Mormon President Ezra Taft Benson summed up the legacy of the eleven witnesses this way. "Six of the original Twelve Apostles selected by Joseph Smith were excommunicated. The three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon left the church. Three of Joseph Smith's counselors fell--one even helped plot his death. . . . The wolves among our flock are more numerous and devious today than when President Clark made a similar statement [in 1949]."{6}
Let us first examine the character of the three key witnesses since their testimony is the most important. In a letter dated December 16, 1838, Joseph Smith stated this about the three key witnesses and John Whitmer, one of the eight. "John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris are too mean to mention."{7}
Martin Harris' testimony shows him to be a gullible and unstable man. He changed his religious conviction approximately thirteen times. He had joined several Christian denominations and other cult groups that include the Universalists, Strangites, and the Shakers. {8}(Ankerberg, 196) In Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith gave revelations in which he denounces Martin Harris and calls him a "wicked man."{9} The Mormon leaders published an article in the Elder's Journal, a Mormon publication edited by Joseph Smith, in which they accused Harris guilty of "swearing, lying, cheating, swindling, drinking, with every species of debauchery. . ." (Elders Journal, August, 1838, 59).{10} Here the leaders of the Mormon Church strongly criticize the character of Harris.
Oliver Cowdery was also shown to be a very gullible man. He was led astray by Hiram Page, one of the eight witnesses who himself claimed to have divine revelations from his own seer stone. Although Joseph Smith denounced Hiram as a false teacher, Smith stated "to our grief, however, we soon found that Satan had been lying in wait to deceive. . . . Brother Hiram Page had in his possession a certain stone, by which he obtained certain 'revelations' . . . all of which were entirely at variance with the order of God's House, . . ."{11} Despite Smith's condemnation, Oliver Cowdery joined Page's movement. Not only was he a gullible man, he was also indicted on several accounts of fraudulent business practices. The Mormon Church in a letter wrote, "During the career of Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer's bogus money business, it got abroad into the world that they were engaged in it. . . . We have evidence of a very strong character that you are at this very time engaged with a gang of counterfeiters, coiners, and blacklegs . . ."{12} Cowdery was eventually excommunicated and he later joined the Methodist Church.
David Whitmer wrote, "God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter- day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them." In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness. . . . About the same time that I came out, the Spirit of God moved upon quite a number of the brethren who came out, with their families, all of the eight witnesses who were then living (except the three Smiths) came out; . . ."{13} Here David Whitmer denounced the Mormon Church and encouraged people to follow his example and the example of the other witnesses and leave the church.
Joseph Smith in response attacked the character of David Whitmer. Smith stated, "God suffered such kind of beings to afflict Job . . . this poor man who professes to be much of a prophet, has no other dumb ass to ride but David Whitmer, to forbid his madness when he goes up to curse Israel: and this ass not being of the same kind as Balaam's . . . he brays out cursing instead of blessings. Poor ass!"{14}
The character and life of the eleven witnesses to the Book of Mormon are very different from the Apostles of Christ. None of the Apostles wavered in their defense of Christ, even though all suffered and most died for their faith. The Apostles remained consistent in their teaching and never fell into any type of apostasy. Their lives were marked by honesty and integrity. They were never indicted for any criminal activity except for preaching Christ. The character of the Book of Mormon's eleven witnesses does not strengthen Smith's defense but cast further doubt on its authenticity.
Probe Ministry website quote
Lots of interesting information about the claims of mormonism at the probe website for any lurkers ...
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4217713/k.DD61/Examining_the_Book_of_Mormon.htm
What?
JS took THIS to anton, and SAID he copied them from the plates.
You do NOT believe the PROPHET?
Against these frantic questions we have the printed testimonies of Book of Mormon witnesses. Declared "with words of soberness", they speak for themselves.
At this time when all patriots are needed to be active in turning back an all-out effort by "progressives" to overthrow our constitution, do you really think that ridiculing the Book of Mormon is wise?
The Book of Mormon tells us about struggles between kingmen and freemen in Mesoamerica, and the Book of Mormon sides with the freemen. And now you want to insult the Book of Mormon in ways that are offensive to believers in it?
Please, for the sake of America, don't ostracize conservative, Constitution-loving Latter Day Saints, who want to help take America from our domestic enemies. Patriots can read about the struggle between kingmen and freemen in the Book of Alma and know that something similar is happening in America right now.
At this time when all patriots are needed to be active in turning back an all-out effort by “progressives” to overthrow our constitution, do you really think that ridiculing the Book of Mormon is wise?
_______________________________________
AH John...
What on Earth has the Constitution got to do with a fictitious poorly written book ???
So what if someone “overthrows” the constitution of the United States ???
God wont fall off His throne...
What if someone doesnt believe the Koran ???
Will that effect the Constitution of the United States one way or another ???
How about the Harry Potter series ???
Or Battlestar Galactica ???
I’m sure lots of people realize they arent real either...
To throw aspertions on someone’s level of patriocy just because they think Joey Smith and his book of mormon is a joke or not is stretching this way too far...
We have Vietnam veterans and Iraq veterans in these threads...
Are you suggesting that because they have the sense to not be taken in by a conman they are responsible if the Constitution is changed...
Sonny you are too late with your strange accusations...
The Constituation was changed (”overthrown”) YEARS BEFORE Joey Smith was ever born...
What do you think an AMENDMENT is ???
BTW the one who wrote the book of mormon was also a “progressive” who was working to “Overthrow” not only the constitution, but the government of the United States...
At this time when all patriots are needed to be active in turning back an all-out effort by “progressives” to overthrow our constitution, do you really think that ridiculing the Book of Mormon is wise?
_______________________________________
Lets see, you are not concerned that you believe something to do with God was “overthrown” at some early point by “progressives” and needed “restoring”
but you bite your nails over a temporal government on Earth that is going to be done away with anyway...
Why dont you tell us how you think the Church was ever wrestled from the clumsy fingers of the LORD Jesus Christ of the Bible ???
She must have been if she ever needed “restoring”...
If God needed a man to help him get her back...
Show us how wise you are ...
And now you want to insult the Book of Mormon in ways that are offensive to believers in it?
___________________________________________
Its impossible to “insult” the book of mormon...
its just a book of fiction...
Do you say the same things about the Koran ???
Better still are you wise and careful over the Word of the Living God, THe Holy Bible ???
A few years after Joey Smith wrote his book of mormon, the great author, Mark Twain (Samuel Clements) was on a trip through Utah and he brought himself a copy of the book of mormon because he had heard something about it and because he was in the kingdom of the mormons..
He said that it was so boring, it was “chloroform in print” and said if the “and it came to passes” were taken out it would have been only a pamplet..(Mark Twain, Roughing It)
Dont lets start pretending that the writings of Joey Smith have any intrinsic value..
It is not the Bible, nor anywhere near its equal in religious value...
nor as an American self help book is it even close to Poor Richards Almanack..
However the Koran does contain several verses which are echoed almost verbatim in mormon doctrines...Joey Smith and others copied the ideas from Islamic literature..
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.