Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Book of Mormon Geography: Which Theory do you Believe?
Grace for Grace.com ^ | Sept. 8, 2009 | Ama49

Posted on 09/11/2009 7:29:00 AM PDT by Colofornian

I came across some interesting Book of Mormon geography theories. Some of which I was familiar with and a few that were new to me. I found them interesting to read through. I’m sure there are more theories out there, but here are a few for you to read through. I’ve included links for more information on each theory on the titles of the theory.

Mesoamerica Theory 1: Isthmus of Tehuantepec

As you can see in this map, this theory is the one in which people believe the main location for the Book of Mormon is in Central America and Mexico. The theory is that the land and continent formation is the same as today for the most part and that the archeological findings in that area could be related to Book of Mormon people. It is also a limited geography model in that the geography covers just parts of the Americas rather than all of North and South America.

Mesoamerica Theory 2: Part of the Caribean that sunk into the ocean

This theory is similar to the first theory, except the geography covers most of North and Central America and it also includes areas of the Carribean that have sunk into the ocean that appear to be cities and/or civilizations.

Baja Penninsula Theory

This theory is a relatively new one that I found the other day which claims that Lehi and company landed on the Baja Penninsula in Mexico. The theory is that this is one of the only locations in the world that supports a Meditteranean climate similar to the one Lehi and his family departed from.

Great Lakes Theory

This theory is that the whole Book of Mormon took place around the Great Lakes region.

Malay Penninsula Theory

This one is another relatively new theory. The theory is that the archeological findings in Mesoamerica do not support Book of Mormon civilizations and also that Lehi and company couldn’t feasibly make the journey 16,000 miles to the Americas. Therefore, they landed on the Malay Penninsula , which is in the area of Singapore and Thailand.

So now it’s your turn to share your thoughts. Which theory do you believe in or do you not believe in any of them? Take time to vote on which theory you believe in and feel free to leave a comment as well.


TOPICS: Other Christian
KEYWORDS: 2silly4words; 4cryingoutloud; antimormonthread; bookofmormon; geography; gottabesatire; isthisajoke; lds; mormon; staire; wtf; youarejoing
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last
Many Bibles have maps in the back section. Could you just imagine what liberals would have done ridiculing the Bible out of serious consideration had it absolutely no sure landing point in geographical history?

Could you just imagine if we had to "theorize" where the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea and Jerusalem were?

From the blog: So now it’s your turn to share your thoughts. Which theory do you believe in or do you not believe in any of them?

Well, my theory is this geographical location was simply in Joseph Smith's mind. Joseph borrowed from others -- either having read or at least heard about manuscripts in existence at his time about lost tribes of Israel.

And how do I know my theory has some credence? Well, lots of contextual clues exist...But let's just address the main one -- one revealed by his mother (and moms know a lot about their teen-age sons).

At about the age of 17, Joseph Smith, Jr. was quite "fluent" in telling tall tales...

We even see this later in his life when, still in his 20s, he gave himself secret code names that he pretended were names God gave him -- like Baurak Ale [sounds like a good beer brand for these days, eh?] (Doctrine & Covenants 103:35) and Gazelam (D&C 104:26)...and he would do the same for people he was sending everywhere as missionaries.

It all comes to down to men & women placing their 100% spiritual trust in what a mere lad said he saw. Here's what Lucky Mack Smith said about her 17 yo son, Joseph Smith, Junior:

"During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of the continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them. On the twenty-second of September, 1824, Joseph again visited the place where he found the plates the year previous; and supporting at this time that the only thing required, in order to possess them until the time for their translation, was to be able to keep the commandments of God...he fully expected to carry them home with him. (Lucy Mack Smith, edited by Preston Nibley, History of Joseph Smith, p. 83, Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, 1958)

What Mormons often miss in this account is that Lucy Mack Smith was saying Joseph gave these storied details before he ever even "interpreted" these gold plates. A lot of it was already there -- in his active, imaginitive mind!

1 posted on 09/11/2009 7:29:00 AM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Interesting!


2 posted on 09/11/2009 7:31:46 AM PDT by conservative cat (America, you have been PWNED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

My first bom contained photos of the Great Lakes and a reference to them being the ‘great seas’ spoken of in the bom. Wish I could find that particular edition again.

Regarding these ‘theories’, some have become quite a set of fireworks within mormonodom. North American Geographists
lead by Rod Meldrum, have created a great deal of friction with the current Limited Geographists lead by the apologists at the Maxwell Institute (FARMS).

Yet all of these “modern” theories have to in some fashion deny the fundamental historic mormon teaching, inspired from day 1 by Smith, that all native Americans are descended from Israelites. In fact, the Presidency is on the record denouncing the Limited Geography theory as being contrary to the teachings of Smith and the bom.

The total lack of scientific evidence to support ANY of the theories (in contrast to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary) is not suprising when one considers the bom to be a work of fiction (agreed to by former Apostle B.H. Roberts).


3 posted on 09/11/2009 7:42:45 AM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
I wonder if MORONI is advising the democrat Party..
For they all appear to be Morons..

Are they stealth Mormons?..

4 posted on 09/11/2009 7:51:29 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

My theory is that the BOM is a pack of lies.

How does that wash?


5 posted on 09/11/2009 7:52:05 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

I’ve read the BOM. It is an utter work of pure fiction. I was considering becoming a Mormon back around 1979. A little studying shut that down real quick. A lot of studying and decades later I am, frankly, amazed at how many actually intelligent people believe this thing with absolutely no proof whatsoever.

Don’t get me wrong. Christianity is all about faith. But not BLIND faith.


6 posted on 09/11/2009 7:53:32 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

If one looks at sites in the Book of Mormon that DO comport with modern day sites, then one would expect to find archaeological artifacts that support the stories of events that supposedly took place there.

One glaring example is the “Hill Cumorah” in New York. According to the Book of Mormon, an incredible battle took place there between the Nephites and the Lamanites. One would expect to find some tell-tale evidence of such a bloody battle. A knife blade.. an arrowhead... a chariot wheel... a breastplate... a helmet... anything at all. But nothing has been found ... nothing.

In fact, since no artifacts have been found at the Hill Cumorah in New York, some LDS “archaeologists” have begun to theorize that no battle took place there at all. (Ya think?) An hypothesis has arisen that postulates Cerro Vigia near Veracruz, Mexico as the site of the battle between the Nephites and Lamanites.

I eagerly await archaeological evidence that will support this latest new attempt to harmonize events depicted in the Book of Mormon with North American geography. I suspect that the result will be like all the other previous attempts.. unsuccessful.


7 posted on 09/11/2009 7:53:53 AM PDT by Guyin4Os (My name says Guyin40s but now I have an exotic, daring, new nickname..... Guyin50s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Mesoamerica Theory 2: Part of the Caribean that sunk into the ocean

This theory is similar to the first theory, except the geography covers most of North and Central America and it also includes areas of the Carribean that have sunk into the ocean that appear to be cities and/or civilizations.

In all honesty, I feel sorry for Mormons.

This shows how far people will go to hold onto their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence they aren't true.

Sunken cities? And of course all the anacronisms (horses, sheep, forged metal, barley, wheat, etc...) found in the BOM also sunk. See, they existed, we've just been looking in the wrong place.

When you have to resort to a theory that makes the City of Atlantis legend look rational, you've redefined desperate.

8 posted on 09/11/2009 8:00:59 AM PDT by Brookhaven (http://theconservativehand.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Sorry, I am wiping tears from eyes from laughing.


9 posted on 09/11/2009 8:07:33 AM PDT by svcw (Legalism reinforces self-righteousness - it communicates to you the good news of your own goodness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
Does that sympathy extend to those who decry evolution?
10 posted on 09/11/2009 8:12:47 AM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Guyin4Os
An hypothesis has arisen that postulates Cerro Vigia near Veracruz, Mexico as the site of the battle between the Nephites and Lamanites.

Yes, the limited geographists place the bom Hill Cumorah there. That doesn't explain why Moroni dug the plates up from that location and moved them to NY state and placed them into a new hole, then lied to smith about the resting place of the plates.

11 posted on 09/11/2009 8:12:55 AM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
Christianity, as Paul pointed out in many ways through out his writings is a religion of both faith and reason.

The intangibles like is God really God and does he really exist, is Jesus truly the son of God and the like are the only things we should have to apply faith to, and even those things can also be argued with some reason and logic.

We should not have to take on faith that there was a Rome, a Red Sea, a Herod etc.

12 posted on 09/11/2009 8:28:05 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (There's something socialist in the neighborhood, who ya gonna call? MITTBUSTERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

I realize this is a LDS smear thread, but as a believing member of that faith, I will post the text that explains the sinking cities and changed landscape of the Americas as the death of Christ. I hold my own view of geography, but as there is so much not known, there is no need debating it among non believers.

This is from the BOM.

http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/8


13 posted on 09/11/2009 8:54:03 AM PDT by Lachoneus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Guyin4Os
One glaring example is the “Hill Cumorah” in New York. According to the Book of Mormon, an incredible battle took place there between the Nephites and the Lamanites. One would expect to find some tell-tale evidence of such a bloody battle. A knife blade.. an arrowhead... a chariot wheel... a breastplate... a helmet... anything at all. But nothing has been found ... nothing.

Maybe both sides were "green" warriors, and all of their fallen weapons were biodegradable!

14 posted on 09/11/2009 9:06:20 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (...We never faced anything like this...we only fought humans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Do you know where Planet Kolob is?
15 posted on 09/11/2009 9:07:10 AM PDT by HenpeckedCon (1/20/13 - Obama's Last Day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Book of Mormon geography
Modern Map of the area of Smith's youth

16 posted on 09/11/2009 9:11:05 AM PDT by delacoert (Good health to your belly button.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lachoneus
So let me get this straight, Christ is Crucified and God doesn't take out his anger on the Romans who performed the act, the local Jewish leaders who set him up, he commits no harm to any of their cities or people.

However he does destroy people and lands half a world away that were inhabited by harmless indigenous people and presumably the decedents of the Israelite people who fled to the new world as put forth in the book of Mormon.

Makes sense... (does it need the tag?)

17 posted on 09/11/2009 9:11:58 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (There's something socialist in the neighborhood, who ya gonna call? MITTBUSTERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
All you have to do is read "View of the Hebrews"

The book of Mormon Plagiarizes from this book

"View of the Hebrews" was published in 1823 and a second edition was published in 1825.
The Book of Mormon was published in 1830.
"View of the Hebrews" flooded the area in which Joseph Smith lived.
The author (Ethan Smith) was the pastor of the religious congregation in which the (Oliver) Cowdrey family attended.
The (Oliver) Cowdrey family was related to the (Joseph) Smith family, and Oliver Cowdrey assisted in the "translation" of the Book of Mormon.
On what was probably a promotional tour for his book, Ethan Smith visited the small hometown (Palmyra) of Joseph Smith in late 1826.
Josiah Priest's The Wonders of Nature and Providence, Displayed (1825), which also includes numerous parallels to the Book of Mormon, quotes extensively from Ethan Smith's book and is known to have been available in the local Manchester Rental Library when Joseph Smith lived in the village.

18 posted on 09/11/2009 9:25:05 AM PDT by ThinkingBuddha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Please read the “Book of Mormon” and the KJV of the Bible. Then read “View of the Hebrews”. Then make up your own mind about it.


19 posted on 09/11/2009 9:27:27 AM PDT by ThinkingBuddha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22
That's a valid question. Nephi spoke of this some 550 years before the Crucifixion. http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/19/

1 Nephi 19


11 For thus spake the prophet: The Lord God surely shall visit all the house of Israel at that day, some with his voice, because of their righteousness, unto their great joy and salvation, and others with the thunderings and the lightnings of his power, by tempest, by fire, and by smoke, and vapor of darkness, and by the opening of the gearth, and by mountains which shall be carried up.
12 And all these things must surely come, saith the prophet Zenos. And the rocks of the earth must rend; and because of the groanings of the earth, many of the kings of the isles of the sea shall be wrought upon by the Spirit of God, to exclaim: The God of nature suffers.
13 And as for those who are at Jerusalem, saith the prophet, they shall be scourged by all people, because they crucify the God of Israel, and turn their hearts aside, rejecting signs and wonders, and the power and glory of the God of Israel.
14 And because they turn their hearts aside, saith the prophet, and have despised the Holy One of Israel, they shall wander in the flesh, and perish, and become a hiss and a byword, and be hated among all nations.
15 Nevertheless, when that day cometh, saith the prophet, that they no more turn aside their hearts against the Holy One of Israel, then will he remember the covenants which he made to their fathers.
16 Yea, then will he remember the isles of the sea; yea, and all the people who are of the house of Israel, will I gather in, saith the Lord, according to the words of the prophet Zenos, from the four quarters of the earth.
17 Yea, and all the earth shall see the salvation of the Lord, saith the prophet; every nation, kindred, tongue and people shall be blessed.
18 And I, Nephi, have written these things unto my people, that perhaps I might persuade them that they would remember the Lord their Redeemer.

20 posted on 09/11/2009 9:32:16 AM PDT by Lachoneus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ThinkingBuddha
In all the discussions regarding Mormonism, the Joseph Smith writings, and differentiating Mormonism and Christianity, the one thing seldom noted is that those who are following Mormonism are showing an earnest desire to be true to God. Now, if they are being lead astray by false doctrine, are they not still exhibiting what was conveyed by 'David was a man after God's own heart'?

I used to spend hours debating, arguing, haranging the mormonism apologists at FR. Sure, I do believe the BofM is hogwash fiction and not well written fiction. But there comes a point when only God's Holy Spirit can reach folks so determined tow ork on their own salvation instead of allowing God to do it.

Recall please:
"Many are called, but few are chosen" ... "Faithful is He that calleth you, for He will also do it" ...
If so many are called why are so few chosen? ... Because so few will let Him do it.

No matter how much we want to be effective in showing the Light, only God's Holy Spirit rays can actually reach the windows of the human spirit.

21 posted on 09/11/2009 9:38:42 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Dems, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: delacoert
Book of Mormon place names compared to actual Northeast US/Southeast Canada place names
Canadian locations are marked with an asterisk and appear in the Book of Mormon as lying in "The Land Northward"

 

US / CANADA PLACES     
*Agathe, Saint  
Alma  
Angola  
Antrim  
Antioch  
Boaz  
*Conner  
*Ephrem, Saint  
Hellam  
Jacobsburg  
Jerusalem  
Jordan  
Kishkiminetas  
Lehigh  
Mantua  
Monroe  
Minoa  
*Moraviantown  
*Morin  
Noah Lakes  
Oneida  
Oneida Castle  
Omer  
*Rama  
*Ripple Lake  
Sodom  
Shiloh  
Land of Midian  
*Tecumseh/Tenecum  
  BOOK OF MORMON PLACES
   Ogath
   Alma, Valley of
   Angola
   Antum
   Anti-Anti
   Boaz
   Comner
   Ephraim, Hill
   Helam
   Jacobugath
   Jerusalem
   Jordan
   Kishkumen
   Lehi
   Manti
   Moroni
   Minon
   Morianton
   Moron
   Noah, Land of
   Onidah
   Onidah, Hill
   Omner
   Ramah
   Ripliancum, Waters of
   Sidom
   Shilom
   Land of Midian
   Teancum
  

22 posted on 09/11/2009 9:45:09 AM PDT by delacoert (Good health to your belly button.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Since when the BOM has anything to do with true geography? There is more real geography in the _Lord of the Rings_ trilogy than in the BOM. To argue otherwise is a huge waste of time for me.

-Theo


23 posted on 09/11/2009 9:56:58 AM PDT by Teˇfilo (Visit Vivificat! - http://www.vivificat.org - A Catholic Blog of News, Commentary and Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lachoneus; ejonesie22
That's a valid question. Nephi spoke of this some 550 years before the Crucifixion.

Flawed assumption. This was written by Smith some 1830 years after the crucifixion. It is circlar logic to use it to prove it's inspiration.

24 posted on 09/11/2009 10:05:17 AM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla
Smith, Cowdry, Spaulding, Rigdon... etc.

I sure with the critics would try to come to a consensus on who wrote it.

25 posted on 09/11/2009 10:16:21 AM PDT by Lachoneus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; conservative cat; fishtank; Guyin4Os; Brookhaven; Lachoneus; HenpeckedCon; svcw; ...
Colofornian, you posted a very informative comment on this on my thread

In Search of Book of Mormon Geography at post 52.

I posted the link to Helland's

BOOK OF MORMON PROBLEMS in the post following yours.

Also, see Book of Mormon Chronology

26 posted on 09/11/2009 10:20:41 AM PDT by greyfoxx39 (Obama, the cow patty version of Midas. Everything he says is bull, everything he touches is crap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lachoneus
Smith, Cowdry, Spaulding, Rigdon... etc. I sure with the critics would try to come to a consensus on who wrote it.

Actually, there have been studies indicating the influence by the different 'scribes' and sources. This is one of them.

Even mormon Apostle B.H. Roberts conceeds that one of the other writings in existance at the time, Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews furnished structural material for the bom. Roberts admited that the evidence pointed in this direction:
It has been pointed out in these pages that there are many things in the former book that might well have suggested many major things in the other. Not a few things merely, one or two, or half dozen, but many; and it is this fact of many things of similarity and the cumulative force of them that makes them so serious a menace to Joseph Smith's story of the Book of Mormon's origin ... The material in Ethan Smith's book is of a character and quantity to make a ground plan for the Book of Mormon (B. H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 2nd edition (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992, p. 240).

In this case, it is a mormon with integrity who points to the clear evidence that smith et.al. came up with the material for the bom from existing sources, and not a mythical set of golden plates (that mormon history itself indicates were not used).

27 posted on 09/11/2009 11:08:41 AM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla
This claim always cracks me up. B. H. Roberts was a great leader in the Church and was Church Historian. His belief in the Church and the validity of the BoM carried to his death.

What he wrote was a work explaining how some geography theories as well as books like View of the Hebrews could lead to critics (like yourself) in denigrating the Church. He wrote this for the Church leadership giving them a heads up.

Some Anti Mormons actual dredge this up from time to time, (like today) claiming he lost his faith in the Book of Mormon. Funny stuff.

28 posted on 09/11/2009 11:37:15 AM PDT by Lachoneus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla
In fact, I will add what you did not, for whatever reason. I can only assume why you left it out. Here is his preface to what he said in his work prepared for the General Authorities:

“Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report [is] ... for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro and con, as well that which has been produced against it as that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakeable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it.”

29 posted on 09/11/2009 11:47:17 AM PDT by Lachoneus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lachoneus

How does Roberts explain it?


30 posted on 09/11/2009 12:03:59 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

You can get it here.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Studies-of-the-Book-of-Mormon/Brigham-H-Roberts/e/9781560850274


31 posted on 09/11/2009 12:09:04 PM PDT by Lachoneus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Lachoneus

Can you please give me a summary of his explanation?


32 posted on 09/11/2009 12:11:14 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Book of Mormon Geography: Which Theory do you Believe?
_______________________________________________

None of them...

Harry Potter is more believable...

Joey Smith should have plagurized JK Rowling...


33 posted on 09/11/2009 12:12:43 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

It’s not my argument. Ask whomever posted the snips from whatever anti Mormon site they got them from. Or read the whole thing. That’s your choice. I’m sure the intent of the purpose of out of context snips has been made clear.


34 posted on 09/11/2009 12:15:15 PM PDT by Lachoneus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Ping to #21 above.


35 posted on 09/11/2009 12:20:37 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Dems, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lachoneus

I was wondering about the factual part of how Roberts gets from “Smith’s book is of a character and quantity to make a ground plan for the Book of Mormon” to “our faith is not only unshaken but unshakeable in the Book of Mormon.”

There would seem to be an explanation of the first statement required for the second. Perhaps not, perhaps Roberts doesn’t give one.

Is it just a “heads up” without an apologetic? I’m asking you because you seemed to have a dog in this hunt.

If you don’t know, that’s ok too, no problem. I’m just looking for information, not commenting on “intent of the purpose.”


36 posted on 09/11/2009 12:24:35 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

I’m with you now. I think that’s a fair question. Roberts was an able scholar, and he was not afraid to play ‘devil’s advocate’ to strengthen the Church’s defenses against its critics.


37 posted on 09/11/2009 12:29:00 PM PDT by Lachoneus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: HenpeckedCon

It is lost as is Caprica


38 posted on 09/11/2009 12:32:17 PM PDT by discomatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lachoneus

You are so funny L, please read my posts before jumping the shark. I never said Roberts ‘lost’ his faith (go back and read my post again. It will save you time from having lame strawmen exposed.

Secondly, Roberts words were cited, not an ‘anti’ interpretation of them. Nice of you to recognize Robert’s claim - that there are an abundance of parallels between “View to the Hebrews” and the bom. Roberts took about 100 pages alone to document the parallels.


39 posted on 09/11/2009 12:37:14 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

If you weren’t saying as much, then I apologize. It seemed obvious to me, but I suppose I tend to do that with so much anti Mormon stuff here.


40 posted on 09/11/2009 12:44:14 PM PDT by Lachoneus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Lachoneus
In fact, I will add what you did not, for whatever reason. I can only assume why you left it out. Here is his preface to what he said in his work prepared for the General Authorities:

Sadly, you omit the proper citation for your quote that followed -

“Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report [is] ... for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro and con, as well that which has been produced against it as that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakeable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it.”

Lets fill in the gaps of your rebuttal, shall we. For starters, this is an extract from a letter written in 1922 before he had published "A Book of Mormon Study". As such, it is temporally removed from any conclusions he later came to after writing "A Book of Mormon Study" nor could it be a cover for a bom study.

Secondly, place Robert's letter in better context (from which you cited, but not fully), its first sentence states You will perhaps remember that during the hearing on "Problems of the Book of Mormon" reported to your Council January, 1922. . . . Please note, the letter from which you cited was addressing another item all together different from the "A Book of Morman Study".

Finally, it still doesn't support what Roberts himself concludes, such as -

"There were other Anti-Christs among the Nephites, but they were more military leaders than religious innovators... they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and underdeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator. It is difficult to believe that they are a product of history, that they came upon the scene separated by long periods of time, and among a race which was the ancestral race of the red man of America.”
- Studies of the Book of Mormon, by B.H. Roberts, p. 271

So where is the bom geography L? So please tell us all where the events of the bom took place?

41 posted on 09/11/2009 1:18:53 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lachoneus
So basically god set the local Jews, including the ones that actually participated in the death of christ, out into the general populations to wonder the nations of Europe as rejects (Something long established as historical fact) but destroys a large number of the Children of Israel that traveled half way around the world and had nothing to do with the death of christ, to the point of wiping them out so thoroughly that there is no remnant of their existence...

Like I said, makes sense, since god is just a grumpy old guy with powers from another planet...

42 posted on 09/11/2009 1:21:18 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (There's something socialist in the neighborhood, who ya gonna call? MITTBUSTERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lachoneus
If you weren’t saying as much, then I apologize. It seemed obvious to me, but I suppose I tend to do that with so much anti Mormon stuff here.

Well then perhaps you should pause and read the arguements first. With that said, there is plenty of evidence from Roberts work that points to a non-inspired source(s) of the bom. And as cited above, Roberts openly regards some portions as a work of fiction. That in itself points to a loss of faith. But then much of mormon teaching involves exalting faith over facts doesn't it.

Connect the dots -
- DNA evidence shows a completely different ancestory or the Amerindians than predicted by the bom.
- No bom cities, artifacts, ruins, writings have been uncovered
- Mormon GA Roberts demonstrates that Smith et al could have composed the bom from books and stories already present at the time.
- The gross anachronistic portions, biology and technology not supported by any discovery.

And this doesn't even begin to cover such parallels (identified by Roberts too) to Josiah Priest's "Wonders of Nature and Providence", which shows that it was nearly universal belief in 1824 (6 years before the first edition of the bom) that Indians were descendants of the 'lost' tribes of Israel. Again, this doesn't even begin to touch other sources Smith could have drawn upon.

43 posted on 09/11/2009 1:43:33 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22; Godzilla
TEH FURST BOOK OV NEFI, HIS RAIN AN MINSTREE

Teh stori ov Lehi an wife Sariah an him 4 kittehs, calld, (frum teh oldst) Laman (boos), Lemuel (hiss), Sam, an Nefi (hey, datz meh!). Happy Cat shout out 2 Lehi 2 scatz out ov Jeruzelem! ONO! GOWAY! GIT! Cuz Lehi tellz teh fyoochr 2 the kittehs boutz ther invisible error an dey go all creyzey an try keel him. Srsly! Lehi guy walkin tree daze n desert wit family. Nefi taek brudders bak 2 Jeruzelem 2 getz jewcats book (dey rly no wanna goez). No happy tiem. Brudders goed bak agin 2 getz Ishmael guy an hiz rly sooper hot dawters 2 marrie (dem brudders rly happy 2 goed bak dis tiem, gofig!). Big weddin partee, ya no!. All da kittehs go wandrin n teh desert. Sad tiemz. Cum 2 beeg waterz. Nefi's brudders sey "WHAT?!". Nefi pwnd dem an maek kool boat. Dem calld place Boutiful. Everbuddy goed on boat ovr beeg waterz 2 beeg plais wif lotz and lotz of cheezbrgrs. N udder stuffs happenz butz ai m tyard. Iz hard sratchin all dis on metal plaetz, ya no! Anywayz, ai Nefi scratchd dis, k?


1 Ai Nefi wuz burfed 2 awsum pawrentz. Dey teached meh wat dey noed. Ai seed sad stuffs, butz Happy Cat lieks meh, ya rly, ai iz so bad, an ai noed kool Ceiling Cat secritz, so ai scratchd stuffs.2 Ya rly, ai scratchd stuffs in dadcat lolspeak, itz r00t pwd uv jewcats an teh lolspeak uv gypshuns.3 Record iz trooful; Ai rited it and Ai kno from me.


44 posted on 09/11/2009 1:46:30 PM PDT by greyfoxx39 (Obama, the cow patty version of Midas. Everything he says is bull, everything he touches is crap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39; ejonesie22
jIH, nevI�, jIboghpu� vavvo� QaQ, �ej vavpu�wI� lurDechmey mughojmoHlu�pu�; �ej Sengmey law� jIleghpu� jajmeywIjDaq, �ach joH�a�mo� jIcheppu� jajmeywIjDaq �ej QaQghach je joH�a� peghmey Sovghach Dun jIghajpu�, meqvammoH paqvam qaSghach jajmeywIjDaq vIghItlh.
45 posted on 09/11/2009 1:51:17 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

Reformed Kittygyptian?


46 posted on 09/11/2009 1:53:34 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (There's something socialist in the neighborhood, who ya gonna call? MITTBUSTERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22; greyfoxx39
Reformed Kittygyptian?


47 posted on 09/11/2009 1:56:34 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

I feel closer the the Kittehhead already...


48 posted on 09/11/2009 2:00:25 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (There's something socialist in the neighborhood, who ya gonna call? MITTBUSTERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla; ejonesie22
Best part...."Iz hard sratchin all dis on metal plaetz, ya no! Anywayz, ai Nefi scratchd dis, k?"
49 posted on 09/11/2009 2:00:28 PM PDT by greyfoxx39 (Obama, the cow patty version of Midas. Everything he says is bull, everything he touches is crap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

Klaz iz hande....


50 posted on 09/11/2009 2:01:42 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (There's something socialist in the neighborhood, who ya gonna call? MITTBUSTERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson