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.
Tru dat...
Ok, let’s get something squared away here.
If, as calculated, the plates were to weigh something along the lines of 200lbs. and Smith never claimed he was given heavenly powers to carry the plates, how did he run through the woods for 1-2 miles while being chased by bandits, with a gimpy leg no less?
Just how did the “reliable witnesses handle and heft the gold plates” if the plates weighed ~ 200lbs.?
The story defies all logic, reason, science, physics, etc.
We have JS’s own words to corroborate the ~ wt. of the plates using the dimensions given.
We have his own words saying he wasn’t bestowed with any divine strength.
We have his own personal history which indicates that as a result of some medical procedure on his leg that he walked with a limp and used a cane.
It just doesn’t compute.
You are entirely correct SZ, and this is another component against the mythology of the origin of the bom. Even if a lower weight used - say 60 lbs - that would still make the 'plates' unmanageable for handling as well as running with them and jumping over fences, etc.
So objectively one is faced with hard facts-
The weight of the plates
The testimonies of non-viewing with physical eye but with 'spiritual' eyes
The multi-year history of writing the bom
The lies of D&C 10 to cover-up lies in the composition timeline
The abundance of other writings predating the bom that covers the EXACT SAME story lines and material - hebrew origins of amerindians, scrolls found in a stone box buried on a hill, massive genocidal battles, horses and elephants in the americas, etc
The lack of moral character of the so-called 'witnesses'
The 4000+ changes to the most perfect book on earth
The 'translation' method that didn't even require the presence of the plates - just stuffing ones face into a hat and viewing an occultic 'seer' stone - same used earlier in smith's career to bilk people looking for buried treasure.
TOTAL failure to uncover ANY bom artifacts in the Americas that clearly show an advanced, hebraic society here.
Not only does the whole thing "not compute" SZ, it doesn't even pass the smell test. It is all based upon a subjective "feeling" about the whole matter and the only way one can reach the desired 'feeling' is to ignore the huge pile of evidence AGAINST the bom.
very heavy golden placemarker
... “I hefted it in my mind” testimony!
Changes in the Bible text from the original 1611 Authorized Version, through the dozens of English translations, must surely number in the millions. What is vital is whether or not changes are wise or unwise. If through millions of changes in the wording of the Bible in English, we are moving towards the meaning in the best critical texts based on the best manuscripts, then there is nothing sinister about those millions of changes.
The same situation exists for the Book of Mormon, which has only two manuscripts to deal with, the dictated manuscript of which only parts and fragments still exist (all of which can be studies on microfilm), and the printer's manuscript, which is virtually complete and on display to the general public in the Community of Christ Temple in Independence, Missouri (which can be studied on microfilm in the Temple library).
Although there are only two manuscripts to deal with, textual criticism is still needed, which has revealed that the printer's manuscript, used for the original 1830 edition has some changes marked that show up in the 1837 edition. Also, by comparing what remains of the dictated manuscript with the printer's manuscript, it can be seen that the Hebraic nature of the dictated manuscript was sometimes changed to read better in English, since Cowdery and Smith did not understand what Hebraisms are.
In 1999, the first Book of Mormon entirely based on the two manuscripts with favor towards the dictated manuscript was published, restoring the Hebraisms from the dictated manuscript. This is the Restored Covenant Edition, published by the Zarahemla Research Foundation.
This publication by a small organization with ties to the RLDS/Community of Christ stirred up some jealousy in the huge Mormon church with its many scholars, who were already engaged in a project to produce a Book of Mormon similar to what ZRF beat them to the punch with. While staying in a hotel with a Book of Mormon in a drawer, I noticed that the Mormon church is already moving their Book of Mormon text back towards the original manuscripts, with their full restoration still in the works as their scholars engage in textual criticism.
So scoffing at 4000+ changes in the Book of Mormon is rather foolish at this time when changes are being made in the right direction, back towards the original manuscripts. Many of the millions of changes in the English Bible were in the wrong direction, away from good textual criticism, but many of them have also been in the right direction, back to the best textual criticism of the most faithful scholars.
Ah, comparing apples to oranges John. Changes to the English translations are based upon examination of the extant Greek and Hebrew MS. Where are the golden plates to confirm the changes made to the bom? You know, translated with the 'power of god' straight into english.
The same situation exists for the Book of Mormon, which has only two manuscripts to deal with, the dictated manuscript of which only parts and fragments still exist (all of which can be studies on microfilm), and the printer's manuscript, which is virtually complete and on display to the general public in the Community of Christ Temple in Independence, Missouri (which can be studied on microfilm in the Temple library).
Sorry John, though you it seemed you realized the Greek/Hebrew MS to english - ALL YOU HAVE ARE ENGLISH ms. Further, many of these changes are made INSPITE OF these existing ms - for example
Mosiah 21:28 changed in 1964 ed.
1830 bom - "...king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings;..."
1981 bom - "...king Mosiah had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings;..."
So if you are relying upon the hand written ms John, then the 1964 change is invalid. Another -
Nephi 3:23
1830 bom - "And the land which was appointed was the land of Zarahemla, and the land which was between the land of Zarahemla and the land Bountiful."
1981 bom - "And the land which was appointed was the land of Zarahemla [ . . . .] and the land Bountiful..."
Sorry John - without the plates there are no justifications for these - as well as thousands - changes.
Also, by comparing what remains of the dictated manuscript with the printer's manuscript, it can be seen that the Hebraic nature of the dictated manuscript was sometimes changed to read better in English, since Cowdery and Smith did not understand what Hebraisms are.
Changing your mythology again John. If they didn't understand Hebraisms, how could they identify them to change them. BTW, since you value these things, it is the testimony of the scribe that the 'translation' was given word for word almost letter by letter. Besides - smith was supposed to be translating 'reformed hieroglyphics - not hebrew.
In 1999, the first Book of Mormon entirely based on the two manuscripts with favor towards the dictated manuscript was published, restoring the Hebraisms from the dictated manuscript.
Absent the golden plates again John. When the NIV was written, the scholars went back to the Greek/Hebrew MS. There is no reformed egyptian for your rlds writers to go back to John.
So scoffing at 4000+ changes in the Book of Mormon is rather foolish at this time when changes are being made in the right direction, back towards the original manuscripts.
According to mormon mythology the original ms is the gold plates - any 'changes' cannot be verified against these plates to confirm. Further, unless you are using peep stones, only the power of god could produce an adequate translation in the first place - so you could have saved a lot of time and money and reverted to the 1830 edition.
Many of the millions of changes in the English Bible were in the wrong direction, away from good textual criticism, but many of them have also been in the right direction, back to the best textual criticism of the most faithful scholars.
Textural criticism of what John - do you know what you speak of? If so, then you'd realize that textural criticism of the bom is impossible since the plates are not available for review.
John, oh John!
How could the book of mormon need even one single change???
Joseph Smith claims to have translated it directly under the supervision of God. How could he screw that up, if he was telling the truth?
A. Did he screw it up, even under the direct guidance of God?
B. Did he screw it up because it had nothing to do with God?
C. Is it being continually revised because the mormon church is embarrassed by Joseph’s work and plagiarism?
D. B & C
I see you striving to try to put the best spin on mormonism and its clear failures.
But inside, I personally suspect, all you really have is feelings to base the whole stinking mess of bad facts upon, huh? Because if this was really about facts, you wouldn’t be a mormon.
Joseph even managed to copy the scribal errors in the Old Testament when he plagiarized it. How does that jive with his claims that God inspired it. Did God inspire the identical errors that scribes added into the translations of the Bible?
ampu
According to the Mormon Church’s teaching manual, Gospel Principles, page 53,
Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon into English through the gift and power of God. He said that it is “the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book” (History of the Church, 4:461). Joseph Smith declared the bom was “the most correct of any book on earth” (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 461)
Oliver B. Huntington recorded in his journal:
I went to Provo to a quarterly Stake Conference. Heard Joseph F. Smith describe the manner of translating the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith the Prophet and Seer, which was as follows as near as I can recollect the substance of his description. Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe. But every word and every letter was given him by the gift and power of God. So it is the work of God and not of Joseph Smith, and it was done in this way … The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect the writing on the stone would remain there. (Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, p. 168 of typed copy at the Utah State Historical Society)
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.