Location of Book of Mormon events: evidence from Joseph Smith Papers

[_Who Knows]

Are we talking about Joe the Plumber here?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Do you honestly believe that Joseph meant "this country" to mean anything other than the United States as it existed in 1842 (in other words, to include "Central America" in "this country")?

Yes, I do. Stephens and Catherwood's Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan had been published in 1841, and Joseph liked it very much, thinking that it represented evidence for the Book of Mormon.

So Joseph intended that his use of "this country" include Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan?

[_Scottie]

Are we talking about Joe the Plumber here?

Yuk yuk yuk!!

[_Daniel Peterson]

So Joseph intended that his use of "this country" include Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan?

I suspect that this country was a rather vague allusion to parts roundabout rather than to places in the Old World.

It's undeniable, though, that, by the 1840s, Joseph was thinking of areas south of the United States border as likely Book of Mormon lands.

[_The Dude]

I simply don't understand your continual urge to create straw men, but it's losing its entertainment value for me. For today, at least.

You know, if you provide a counter argument it would actually demonstrate your skills as a thinker and a debater. Your skills as a strawman-detector are not in question.

[_cinepro]

It's undeniable, though, that, by the 1840s, Joseph was thinking of areas south of the United States border as likely Book of Mormon lands.

The difference being that his geography probably always included North and South America to begin with, so saying his geography included Central America doesn't imply an expansion or shift (unless he indicated that sites he previously theorized for the US were now located in mesoamerica).

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's undeniable, though, that, by the 1840s, Joseph was thinking of areas south of the United States border as likely Book of Mormon lands.

The difference being that his geography probably always included North and South America to begin with, so saying his geography included Central America doesn't imply an expansion or shift (unless he indicated that sites he previously theorized for the US were now located in mesoamerica).

In this context, your claim is even better for my position, since Rollo Tomasi wants to restrict "this country" to the United States.

[_John Larsen]

I guess after that, it's elephants all the way down.

I thought it was turtles...




.

Not in the inspired version. ;)

[_John Larsen]

Dr. Peterson, you seem to be missing the point. Why should be believe Joseph at all on anything. We know he was human and he was smart, so some of his statements are bound to be correct. The issue with critics is not infallibility, it is how can you demonstrate that this man demands an credulity at all? Like the Dude pointed out, the things that Joseph commented on that can be tested show a miserable success rate. Why should we assume anything else on the things that can't be verified?

This is tangentially related.

I think it's interesting that no one seems to question Smith's statement clarifying the revelation that became Sec. 89. Even though the canonized scriptural text says it's "hot drinks" that are not for the body, he later said that the Lord meant coffee and tea, specifically, with those two words.

From all I've seen, this wasn't an additional revelation, but it changed the meaning of the words, and now Mormons everywhere avoid iced tea and chilled coffee because (strangely) they qualify as "hot drinks," but consume steaming-hot cocoa to their hearts' content. To me this looks like a great candidate for a prophet expressing his own opinion "as a man," but I've never seen this clarifying interpretation questioned by any LDS scholar.

When did Joseph ever say it was only coffee and tea?

[_CaliforniaKid]

There is scarcely a single point in the above summary that isn't problematic and agenda-laden.

That's a nice assertion, but it doesn't go very far to resolve the difficulty as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why holding Joseph's various revelations to the same standard is problematic and agenda-laden?