T
- Status
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I didn’t see any evidence provided. Sorry, but Nahom is a stretch, and any number of places on a coast could.be declared.to be a Book of Mormon find. It is believing without evidence.
I don’t think anything is wrong with your faculties. You just believe and do not wish to let go of what you believe. This is understandable.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
What she said.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Tom,
The only evidence for the book of mormon is that Joseph Smith DID write a book, a book of fiction. My sense is that you can not believe that a person in the 19th century could do so (this is even side stepping a pretty convincing argument and testimony that J Smith stole a novel and partially rewrote it). I’m not sure where you get this thought that writers in the 19th century couldn’t write a book of fiction.
Here’s a link to some of the best 19th century fictional books.
Matthew 7:16 says
16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?
The "data’ is clear on Joseph Smith’s fruits, his works.
- married 36 times (those who committed polygamy in the OT all fell into trouble. It is not God’s desire. It is not walking in holiness. God would not send a prophet at tell them to do so)
- committed adultery somewhere around twelve times? Show me where in the bible God ever blessed adultery?
- marred two 14 year olds (I have 14 year old daughter Tom, I can’t imagine her getting married in today’s culture or that of the 19th century. Why would an adult marry a 14 year old? … on top of numerous other wives)
- previously was in trouble for selling “miracle oil”
- previously was in trouble for saying that he could find buried treasure (using a rock with a hole in it).
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
What you have to argue as a Mormon Tom is that either Jesus was a terrible teacher and St. John did not understand him or St John was a terrible teacher himself. The Eucharist that St Ignatius mentions has been in place since the Last Supper. As Catholics, we receive Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity at Mass. It’s a great gift from Christ himself - it’s one way that he gives us grace for our salvation. Joseph Smith has led you away from the Church Christ established and has removed you from the Eucharist which Christ put in place for all of us.
PnP
Stephen168
New member
It seems that Michael Coe is one of the few anthropologist who will even look at the work done by “Mormon archaeologist.” He says he is impressed with the work they do, but it seems like it is in the same way we are impressed with the genealogy work that Mormons do. It is great work, but it doesn’t support Mormon beliefs. It is great factual data points, but the conclusions they are trying to make are not tenable.
Coe wrote, “Let me now state uncategorically that as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true, … The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere.”
For example, Coe said, “Nobody has ever found the bones of horses and cattle in these archaeological sites. Horses were already in the New World, all right, but were wiped out about 7000 B.C. by people coming in from Asia. They never found horse bones in these early sites between the prime period, which is 500 B.C. to A.D. 200…”
John Sorenson, a Mormon archaeologist, writes a piece trying to refute Coe by leading the reader to believe that non-Mormon archaeologists believe they have found horse bones in the formative period. None of the archaeologist Sorenson listed believe that to be true, and Sorenson knew it.
I think this reinforces the idea that non-Mormon archaeologist believe that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is false. And I personally would not trust the conclusions of a “Mormon archaeologist” in regard to the Book of Mormon.
This is why I don’t take your offerings seriously; archaeologist don’t.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Tom, one data point that we can go to is the very bible itself. Joseph Smith and the LDS Church has been led astray in part from coming up with a new way of interpreting John 10:16:
7 So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who came before me are thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not heed them. 9 I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13 He flees because he is a hireling and cares nothing for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd;[a] I know my own and my own know me, 15 as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.”**
Jesus is not referring to a civilization in North America here. He is referring to his shepherding not only Jews but Gentiles. His other sheep are the Gentiles. They will heed his voice and together they will be one flock.
PnP**
T
Tarquin
Guest
I do not see in what way Joseph Smith is considered a religious genius. Genius: “an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work;” “natural ability or capacity; strong inclination.” Certainly not in the first case, unless he crafted some “creative and original work,” such as, what? Maybe in the second? Maybe he had a natural ability, or a strong inclination towards, again, what? Religion? Or theology? Or hermeneutics or exegesis? My jury is out on this. I need more information to know whether to agree or not.
Of course he was no simpleton. What a thing to suggest! In his day, people read the Bible a lot and memorized much of it. He said he had applied himself “searching the Scriptures” between the ages of 12 and 15, not just reading the Bible but “pondering” what it said. He also said he had “intimate acquaintance” with the different denominations of Christianity and what they taught. This was not uncommon at that time. If he was serious about the Bible, and he must have been, considering that it was a central piece, if not the central piece of his home schooling, and considering he studied it for hours at a time, he memorize parts of it. Martin Harris reportedly could repeat any verse from the Bible, giving the chapter and verse. Orson Hyde claimed to have memorized it in English, German, and Hebrew. What else was there to do? No movie theaters. No football stadiums. No NASCAR. No internet. No television. No telephone. Too few rock bands to join. No baseball statistics to memorize. Few enough books available, a newspaper if you’re lucky, but not even a Sears Roebuck yet. Joseph could probably do what Harris and Hyde could do, hear a verse and recite the following verse perfectly. At least in many instances. It’s just the way people were at that time, especially boys, one of whose main and most respected career options was . . . the ministry.
T
Tarquin
Guest
For Mormons leaving the Church, you need statistics, but for this your opinion is sufficient.
I am curious how you derived this interpretaton of the purpose of the slogan “Follow the Prophet,” but not curious enough to ask for details. If you would like to respond to what my view of “Follow the Prophet” means, please do so, and if you do not, I will not be offended. My view is based on what the Prophet actually said.
You say the injunction is primarily to give heed to General Conference teachings. Prophet Ezra Taft Benson taught the importance of following the prophet. He said “the grand key” is to follow the prophet. But he did not put “heed the teachings at General Conference” as the primary priority. That’s too general. He was more specific.
Although another Mormon on these forums claimed that the Book of Mormon is the “core teaching” of the Mormon Church, Benson taught, “The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.” (“Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, Ezra Taft Benson, February 26, 1980). He’s dead, now, of course, so Mormons can safely kick him under the bus – “Don’t pit dead prophets against living prophets” – but speaking for myself, I think his words are still important, and some of them are still believed by some Mormons.
Benson quotes Brigham Young approvingly, “Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: “There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,” said he, “when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.” This is more than merely “heeding” the prophet; its placing him above revealed Scripture.
Benson also charged his audience: “Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.” This is less than merely “heeding” the prophet; its placing the living prophet above the past prophets. You are not to heed all the prophets, but only the living prophet and whichever ones he doesn’t disagree with very much.
It’s ironic that you brought up a non-religious subject, math, in relation to the Pope, since three of Benson’s Principles of Principle of “Follow the Prophet” directly addresses all fields and areas of life and study. The Fifth is: “The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.” The Ninth Principle is similar to the Fifth: “The prophet can receive revelation on any matter–temporal or spiritual.” The Eleventh likewise: “The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.”
(continued next post)
T
Tarquin
Guest
(continued)
In the Fifth he says, “We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet, and you’ll be blessed and time will vindicate you.” He is not saying you should stand with the prophet when there is a religious conflict between Mormon and Catholic doctrine. He is saying when there is disagreement between “earthly knowledge” and the prophet, then you should stand on the side of the prophet. If earthly knowledge includes “the earth is round” or “God is not a man” and the prophet says otherwise, the prophet is right by definition. Not by fact, evidence or truth, but by virtue of his office. Like Roman emperors who could not be fawned over enough. Not just math, but the calculus, astronomy, particle physics, history, linguistics, optometry, computer science, martial arts . . . the prophet, in the words of Walter, “kno-o-o-ows!”
The Pope and other Catholic clergy, contrariwise, will have taken formal courses in one or more fields, such as Physics and Philosophy, before they speak authoritatively on them, and will hardly profess to speak authoritatively on serious issues of theology without having some formal training in the subject.
When it comes to the Mormon prophet, though, that is too much knowledge and infallibility in one man, for me. Especially when I realize that once he’s a dead prophet, I can’t rely on his teaching any longer. When a prophet dies, what a lot of scurrying there must be to discover what of his teachings must now be rejected because the living prophet teaches differently. This is a serious matter.
I am grateful to Benson for bringing up a quote that many Mormons hate to deal with, and respond to it with statements like, “That was just his opinion.” Brigham Young said many outrageous things. Mormons excuse him by claiming he was just giving them as his opinion. However, unfortunately for those Mormons, in explaining his Sixth Principle, Benson turns that notion on its head. After telling his audience, “Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel, but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you” (D&C 21:4), Benson quotes Brigham Young, again approvingly, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture” (Journal of Discourses 13:95). (Didn’t Prophet Benson know that the JoD was not one of the standard works!? Actually, he knew it is. It never lost that status, despite never having been voted on in the interim, and despite modern Mormons complaining again and again, “It’s not a standard work.”)
The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Principles are the key and purpose of the command to “Follow the Prophet.” The first is, “The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency - the highest quorum in the Church.” The second is, “The prophet and the presidency–the living prophet and the First Presidency - follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.”
“Follow the Prophet” does not mean, as you said, TomNossor, heed the teachings at General Conference, and get encouragement to follow the guidance of the church that comes through the prophet on political issues.
No. What it means is, ignore the Scriptures and be prepared to ignore what every other prophet in history has said. For if it does conflict with what the current man says who happens, by tenure and seniority, to be called the President of the Mormon Church, then you absolutely must reject it. Benson, Prophet of the Mormon Church, concluded with a summary of “this grand key, these "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet,” by declaring prophetically, “our salvation hangs on them.” Not God, Jesus, Faith, or Baptism, but on following the prophet. To which Jeremiah replies, “Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.” (Jeremiah 17:5)
“Follow the Prophet” is primarily a command to obey (not just heed) whoever the current prophet is, without criticism, without question, without reservation, without bothering to determine if they are in harmony with Holy Scripture, past revelation, common sense, strict reasoning, or are compatible with physical reality.
But Conference talks are definitely important. They are, after all, Canonized Scripture! “Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accept the following as scripture: 1. The Bible… 2. The Book of Mormon… 3. The Doctrine and Covenants… 4. The Pearl of Great Price… 5. God continues to reveal truths to living prophets through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. These truths are considered scripture (see D&C 68:4). They come to us primarily through general conference, held the first weekend in April and October, when members throughout the world hear addresses from our prophet and other Church leaders” (Ensign, January 2011, 14-15). By the way, the Journal of Discourses are a collection of Conference Talks! So what does that mean? The Journal of Discourses are Holy Scripture! Time to dust them off and read them again.
In the Fifth he says, “We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet, and you’ll be blessed and time will vindicate you.” He is not saying you should stand with the prophet when there is a religious conflict between Mormon and Catholic doctrine. He is saying when there is disagreement between “earthly knowledge” and the prophet, then you should stand on the side of the prophet. If earthly knowledge includes “the earth is round” or “God is not a man” and the prophet says otherwise, the prophet is right by definition. Not by fact, evidence or truth, but by virtue of his office. Like Roman emperors who could not be fawned over enough. Not just math, but the calculus, astronomy, particle physics, history, linguistics, optometry, computer science, martial arts . . . the prophet, in the words of Walter, “kno-o-o-ows!”
The Pope and other Catholic clergy, contrariwise, will have taken formal courses in one or more fields, such as Physics and Philosophy, before they speak authoritatively on them, and will hardly profess to speak authoritatively on serious issues of theology without having some formal training in the subject.
When it comes to the Mormon prophet, though, that is too much knowledge and infallibility in one man, for me. Especially when I realize that once he’s a dead prophet, I can’t rely on his teaching any longer. When a prophet dies, what a lot of scurrying there must be to discover what of his teachings must now be rejected because the living prophet teaches differently. This is a serious matter.
I am grateful to Benson for bringing up a quote that many Mormons hate to deal with, and respond to it with statements like, “That was just his opinion.” Brigham Young said many outrageous things. Mormons excuse him by claiming he was just giving them as his opinion. However, unfortunately for those Mormons, in explaining his Sixth Principle, Benson turns that notion on its head. After telling his audience, “Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel, but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you” (D&C 21:4), Benson quotes Brigham Young, again approvingly, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture” (Journal of Discourses 13:95). (Didn’t Prophet Benson know that the JoD was not one of the standard works!? Actually, he knew it is. It never lost that status, despite never having been voted on in the interim, and despite modern Mormons complaining again and again, “It’s not a standard work.”)
The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Principles are the key and purpose of the command to “Follow the Prophet.” The first is, “The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency - the highest quorum in the Church.” The second is, “The prophet and the presidency–the living prophet and the First Presidency - follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.”
“Follow the Prophet” does not mean, as you said, TomNossor, heed the teachings at General Conference, and get encouragement to follow the guidance of the church that comes through the prophet on political issues.
No. What it means is, ignore the Scriptures and be prepared to ignore what every other prophet in history has said. For if it does conflict with what the current man says who happens, by tenure and seniority, to be called the President of the Mormon Church, then you absolutely must reject it. Benson, Prophet of the Mormon Church, concluded with a summary of “this grand key, these "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet,” by declaring prophetically, “our salvation hangs on them.” Not God, Jesus, Faith, or Baptism, but on following the prophet. To which Jeremiah replies, “Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.” (Jeremiah 17:5)
“Follow the Prophet” is primarily a command to obey (not just heed) whoever the current prophet is, without criticism, without question, without reservation, without bothering to determine if they are in harmony with Holy Scripture, past revelation, common sense, strict reasoning, or are compatible with physical reality.
But Conference talks are definitely important. They are, after all, Canonized Scripture! “Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accept the following as scripture: 1. The Bible… 2. The Book of Mormon… 3. The Doctrine and Covenants… 4. The Pearl of Great Price… 5. God continues to reveal truths to living prophets through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. These truths are considered scripture (see D&C 68:4). They come to us primarily through general conference, held the first weekend in April and October, when members throughout the world hear addresses from our prophet and other Church leaders” (Ensign, January 2011, 14-15). By the way, the Journal of Discourses are a collection of Conference Talks! So what does that mean? The Journal of Discourses are Holy Scripture! Time to dust them off and read them again.
T
Tarquin
Guest
I have thought, but do not know if I am thinking in the way you think I should think. I read critics and apologists of some religions. But I do not know what you think it means for me. What does it mean for me?
Most of the apologists I read are apologists for some particular Christianity or for Christianity in general, both Catholic and Protestant. What does that mean for me – that I’m a Christian? But I also read apologists for Islam, chiefly the Sunni, Shi’a, Ismaili, Ahmadiyya, and Quranist apologists. On the other hand, most critics I read are fairly balanced among those of Islam, Mormonism, and Christianity. What does that mean for me – that I’m an anti-Muslim, anti-Mormon, and anti-Christian?
I would suppose what it means when someone reads more from one area of study than from another, is that either that area is more interesting to them, or it is more important to them, for any of a number of possible reasons. Do you believe that reading critics of a particular religion is inherently sinister?
Then you have willfully chosen to not “Follow the Prophet,” as outlined above, and to accept all the consequences that comes with that “first step of apostasy.”
I, too, am influenced by many good people, some living, some departed (dead prophets and others), although I do not believe more than a few of them to be infallible.
I must reserve my judgment as to whether the directions along which you are being influenced are “Christian and positive,” until I know what I am agreeing with. I don’t agree blindly. As you have also written,
Tangibility is measurable. In what tangible ways is it changing their lives? Christian, positive, and tangible. Not being germane to the topic of archaeological evidences , if you don’t answer here, that’s okay.
Respectfully,
Tarquin
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
It is also interesting to note that teaching young LDS members the importance of following the prophet begins when they are eighteen months old, here is the lesson for 18 month old babies on following the prophet. You can read a lesson for three year olds on following the prophet here:
I
iepuras
Guest
When I taught in nursery class, the music leader sang the song "Follow the Prophet " with the kids every single week. They start working on the kids as soon as they can. So glad that I got my kids out at a very young age. They won’t remember any of it.
M
Memaw
Guest
Wonderful and God Bless, Memaw
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
General note:
Hot Topic for the week of 3/3.
Please remain on topic.
Hot Topic for the week of 3/3.
Please remain on topic.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
Tom,
you never answered…where EXACTLY is Zerehemla and Bountiful?
Is the Cumorah in New York THE Cumorah detailed in the B of M?
you never answered…where EXACTLY is Zerehemla and Bountiful?
Is the Cumorah in New York THE Cumorah detailed in the B of M?
S
SpeSalvi
Guest
It would have to be if it’s where JS found the plates, wouldn’t it?
T
TexanKnight
Guest
yep
T
TOmNossor
Guest
All,
I have seen repeated attempts to define what I must believe on this thread. I am the world authority on what I do believe. It is what I do believe and how I think it fits well within the LDS paradigm that I compare with the Catholic Church and find the Catholic Church to fit less well with the available data.
For errors I have in my concept of Catholicism please start a new thread. I want to have the best view of Catholicism that is possible. I really do. I have mentioned on this thread a few of the Catholic apologists I have read to try to determine what Catholic can and should believe.
Now, I would have hoped some Catholic might defend me against those on this forum who wish to define my beliefs for me. After all, this is so frequently done to Catholics in so many corners of the internet. As I noticed this it is what drove me to reading Catholic apologists.
But, let me offer a little defense of why I should be able to follow the leaders of the CoJCoLDS who embrace a limited geography in Mesoamerica rather than the leaders you wish I would follow.
I am a faithful LDS who has studied about past LDS statements and the source of binding doctrine within the CoJCoLDS. Folks like EVERY NON-LDS on this thread, Simon Southerton, and surely many others seem to demand that I embrace a position that they find easy to dismiss via science. I rejected this position along with numerous thinking LDS (I vaguely recall articles from the 1930’s and there are statements from Joseph Smith and one of Brigham Young’s sons).
I believe the author of the BOM had in mind a consistent geography that maps to a real place. Over 500 geographic tidbits exist within the BOM. Joseph Smith never evidence he had any concept of this geography or this place. He IMO was not the author. As I prophet I do not look to Joseph Smith or Thomas Monson for advice on rebuilding my carbonator and not for their geography knowledge either.
Here are couple of things that I think well define why I as a LDS should feel no need to embrace statements by past leaders on hemispheric geography and no-others.
Wonderful article espousing the same thing I had been saying for years.
From President Harold B. Lee in 1973:
If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.
So, I do not believe that the Hill Cumorah spoken of in the BOM is in NY. Let me list a few places in the BOM I think are will defined.
Jerusalem, Nahom, Bountiful. They fit extraordinarily well with Lehi’s journey. How did the author of the BOM know this if he didn’t have supernatural access to some ancient record?
The BOM also speaks rather directly of a city that used cement, in the presence of lots of water and in the absence of trees Helaman 3:9-11. This once thought to be an anachronism (albeit an anachronism unlikely to have been produced by an 1830’s fellow from upstate NY), has a rather precise point of contact with Mesoamerica. Teotihuacan.
One more little bit. There was a Jaradite king named Kish. The very limited archeological records have also show there was an Olemec king named Kish. This is the right place, timeframe, and name. However, unlike the above two this seems to be more random. The above two are multi-dimensional points of contact. This however is less so. If the BOM is ancient this is well explained, but I do not believe it lends considerable force to the BOM as an ancient document (maybe just a little).
I will try to post what I call the Gartner list. When I get a chance.
Charity, TOm
I have seen repeated attempts to define what I must believe on this thread. I am the world authority on what I do believe. It is what I do believe and how I think it fits well within the LDS paradigm that I compare with the Catholic Church and find the Catholic Church to fit less well with the available data.
For errors I have in my concept of Catholicism please start a new thread. I want to have the best view of Catholicism that is possible. I really do. I have mentioned on this thread a few of the Catholic apologists I have read to try to determine what Catholic can and should believe.
Now, I would have hoped some Catholic might defend me against those on this forum who wish to define my beliefs for me. After all, this is so frequently done to Catholics in so many corners of the internet. As I noticed this it is what drove me to reading Catholic apologists.
But, let me offer a little defense of why I should be able to follow the leaders of the CoJCoLDS who embrace a limited geography in Mesoamerica rather than the leaders you wish I would follow.
I am a faithful LDS who has studied about past LDS statements and the source of binding doctrine within the CoJCoLDS. Folks like EVERY NON-LDS on this thread, Simon Southerton, and surely many others seem to demand that I embrace a position that they find easy to dismiss via science. I rejected this position along with numerous thinking LDS (I vaguely recall articles from the 1930’s and there are statements from Joseph Smith and one of Brigham Young’s sons).
I believe the author of the BOM had in mind a consistent geography that maps to a real place. Over 500 geographic tidbits exist within the BOM. Joseph Smith never evidence he had any concept of this geography or this place. He IMO was not the author. As I prophet I do not look to Joseph Smith or Thomas Monson for advice on rebuilding my carbonator and not for their geography knowledge either.
Here are couple of things that I think well define why I as a LDS should feel no need to embrace statements by past leaders on hemispheric geography and no-others.
Wonderful article espousing the same thing I had been saying for years.
From President Harold B. Lee in 1973:
If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.
So, I do not believe that the Hill Cumorah spoken of in the BOM is in NY. Let me list a few places in the BOM I think are will defined.
Jerusalem, Nahom, Bountiful. They fit extraordinarily well with Lehi’s journey. How did the author of the BOM know this if he didn’t have supernatural access to some ancient record?
The BOM also speaks rather directly of a city that used cement, in the presence of lots of water and in the absence of trees Helaman 3:9-11. This once thought to be an anachronism (albeit an anachronism unlikely to have been produced by an 1830’s fellow from upstate NY), has a rather precise point of contact with Mesoamerica. Teotihuacan.
One more little bit. There was a Jaradite king named Kish. The very limited archeological records have also show there was an Olemec king named Kish. This is the right place, timeframe, and name. However, unlike the above two this seems to be more random. The above two are multi-dimensional points of contact. This however is less so. If the BOM is ancient this is well explained, but I do not believe it lends considerable force to the BOM as an ancient document (maybe just a little).
I will try to post what I call the Gartner list. When I get a chance.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Here is the Gartner list. Unlike the above, I cannot defend all of these myself. I still maintain the presence of Nahom in its relation to Jerusalem, the Frankincense trail, geography (valley of Lemuel and …), and Bountiful stands in need of explanation. Teotihuacan too.
1)Textual
a) Structures reflecting a non-western perspective
1)Textual
a) Structures reflecting a non-western perspective
- Conclusions begin chapters rather than end them
- The construction of the book names follows a discernible logic, but not one that has ever been explained, nor which follows traditional assumptions
- The Book of Mormon contains metastories that are absolutely parallel to Old Testament modes of writing scripture, but which tend to be lost on the more literal modern mind.
- The internally described structure of the text is the best explanation for its features
a) Structural difference between the small plate material and the large plate material
b) Usage of scriptural texts, such as Isaiah and the Sermon on the Mount differ (even though similar in production methodology)
c) Discernible structure and purpose in Mormon’s narrative
- Geography
b) New World - Consistent topographical descriptions
- Correlation to a known geography, including mountains, valleys, and rivers
- Rivers flow in the correct direction, mountains and valleys fit the description of both travel and tactical uses.
- Up and down correlate consistently to topography rather than map orientation.
c) 3 Nephi describes a particular class of volcanic explosion, where the descriptions match known conditions accompanying that kind of volcanic event
d) That area of the world not only has multiple volcanoes, but they are active, and known to have erupted around the time of Christ (dating is not precise, so this is as close as data can come to the timing)
e) There is an identifiable location mentioned in the Book of Mormon. This requires a land northward of the main Nephite holdings, being devoid of trees, being near much water, and having buildings made of cement. That particular set of characteristics points rather directly at the Teotihuacan of 250-600 AD- which matches the time period in which the Book of Mormon points to this set of characteristics. - Historical topography
a) The locations posited for the Book of Mormon were inhabited at the time of the Book of Mormon by societies demonstrating the level of civilization described in the text.
b) The geographic and temporal distribution of cultures known from secular studies of Mesoamerica place two different cultural groups in contact with each other following 600 B.C., with the older culture to the north, and possessing a different language and culture.
c) The northern culture dates to earlier than the time period for the Jaredites. They are in the right location geographically and temporally, and demonstrate the cultural complexity described in the text. There is no other location in the New World at this point in time that fits that description of cultural complexity.
d) One of the plausible causes for the decline of San Lorenzo is a major drought. This occurs at the same time period as the Book of Mormon describes a major drought with dire consequences.
e) The Lehites entered the area during the middle of the Preclassic, a time when there were broad movements of change in the Maya area. At this time there was an increase in both city size and social complexity. The general trend is to greater social differentiation and the beginnings of kingship in Maya city-states. This general trend is mirrored in the conflicts witnessed as early as the book of Jacob. The twin evils against which Jacob preaches, acquisition of wealth leading to social differentiations, and polygamy, are both known for this time period in Mesoamerica. Interestingly, polygamy is directly linked to one of the mechanisms of accumulation of wealth at this time, and the function of wealth is to create social differentiation.
cont…
T
TOmNossor
Guest
- Historical topography (cont…)
f) A non-Mormon archaeologist suggested that the anomalous base of a temple built in the plausible city of Zarahemla (Santa Rosa) was due to a ritual combination of two different peoples. Ceramic sequence dating of the temple places it at the time of Benjamin’s speech (within archaeological accuracy, which is general)
g) There are known ruins in the general geographic structure that C-14 (and sometimes Maya Long Count) to the correct times to have been there during Book of Mormon times.
h) Teotihuacan alters the political alliances and introduces a new and devastating mode of warfare at the same time as the Book of Mormon describes a group of northerners who alter the mode of warfare.
i) The emerging picture of the social pressures in the development of the Maya region of Mesoamerican region shows the same pressures and changes in political structure as are described for the Book of Mormon, and emerging at the same time as the Book of Mormon suggests that they arise. - Linguistic topography
a) The gross linguistics of Mesoamerica match the description of language conflicts in the Book of Mormon. The division lines match the difference between Nephi and Zarahemla, with Zarahemla being influenced by the Jaredites. In secular history, the valley of Nephi was Maya speaking, and the Grijalva river valley (putative location of Zarahemla) is Zoquean, which is related to the Olmec language (the culture in which the Jaredites would have participated). The reconstruction of the movement of Zoque up the Grijalva matches the time frame for the Mulekites in the Book of Mormon. .
b) There is evidence that Mormon linked the northern invaders to Jaredites. This is a plausible linguistic connection, as the language of Teotihuacan is likely to have been Mixe-Zoquean (Olmec language). - Economics
a) The early description of economic matters is enigmatic in the Book of Mormon unless we have the Mesoamerican background. In particular we have Jacob railing against costly apparel. This is a situation that should not exist in a society where everyone makes their own clothing from local materials and dyes. However, it fits into the trade context of Mesoamerica, and clothing was one of the most obvious modes of displaying the wealth and social differentiation.
b) The nature of economics in the Book of Mormon fits the Mesoamerican cultural area. The lack of a monetary system shifted the nature of wealth accumulation, and this is apparent in the continued problem in the Book of Mormon where wealth directly leads to social hierarchies - this is because wealth was defined in terms of displayable goods, not monetary accumulation.
c) The Book of Mormon emphasizes the nature of the tribute - which is the relinquishing of material, not money.
d) There is no indication of land ownership or purchase of lands. While it is negative evidence, it would be an expectation of 19th century America.
- Status