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

[_Who Knows]

In all fairness, the bit from the Joseph Smith papers and the bit from the wentworth letter are quite different. Saying the indians are merely descendents from abraham (JSP) goes nowhere near the outlandish claims that Joseph Smith made in the wentworth letter (that ancient america was first settled by Book of Mormon peoples).

Apologists love dealing with the claim in the JSP. But let's see if DCP agrees with Joseph Smith's words in the wentworth letter?

Edit - Cinepro - JINX, you owe me a coke.

[_The Dude]

Preliminary question: Does Rodney Meldrum believe that the Aleutian Islands are Book of Mormon lands? Does Rodney Meldrum believe that Tierra del Fuego is a Book of Mormon land? Does Rodney Meldrum identify any Book of Mormon sites in the vicinity of, say, modern Santa Barbara? Or modern Buenos Aires? Or modern Seattle?

Is Rodney Meldrum an LGT apologist? If not, why not?

"Question me an answer bright and clear.
I will answer with a question clear and bright.
Even though your answer may be wrong my question will be right.
Question me an answer.
Answer with a question."

-Burt Bacharach

[_Daniel Peterson]

In all fairness, the bit from the Joseph Smith papers and the bit from the wentworth letter are quite different. Saying the indians are merely descendents from abraham (JSP) goes nowhere near the outlandish claims that Joseph Smith made in the wentworth letter (that ancient america was first settled by Book of Mormon peoples).

An excellent point.

Apologists love dealing with the claim in the JSP. But let's see if DCP agrees with Joseph Smith's words in the wentworth letter?

Joseph, like other (particularly Protestant) believers of his time and place, was a biblicist. HIs knowledge of ancient history was primarily mediated through an essentially fundamentalist Protestant view of the Old Testament. When he reports his reading of the Book of Mormon, absent revelation, he interprets it on the basis of his overall worldview just as I do, and, while I accord his reading unusual attention, I don't necessarily feel myself bound by it. So no, I don't think I'm obliged to believe that the Jaredites represent the very first peopling of the Americas. I am not a biblicist, and I'm certainly not a Protestant fundamentalist.

I believe in revelation, and I take revelation very, very seriously. And part of the way I take it very, very seriously, is to distinguish as carefully as I can between revelation and non-revelation, between what is claimed to have come from a divine source and what is associated with no such claim.

[_Chap]

In the light of the new evidence from the Joseph Smith Papers, taken with what we know already from unquestioned sources such as the Wentworth letter, how can one believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet who gave truthful accounts of talks with heavenly messengers, but also deny that the events of the Book of Mormon took place in North America?

Did the angel get it wrong? Did Joseph Smith misunderstand the angel (three times)? Did he give an inaccurate account of what the angel said through forgetfulness or carelessness? All of those possibilities would seem to damage his credibility as a prophet quite seriously, since either his sources were unreliable or he was unreliable as a reporter of what those sources told him.

No doubt there is a good answer to all this.

There seems to be quite a lot of noise on this thread; experience suggests that it is better simply to ignore that kind of thing rather than accept the invitation to be distracted.

I wonder if anyone would care to give an answer to some of the questions above?

[_Daniel Peterson]

In the light of the new evidence from the Joseph Smith Papers, taken with what we know already from unquestioned sources such as the Wentworth letter, how can one believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet who gave truthful accounts of talks with heavenly messengers, but also deny that the events of the Book of Mormon took place in North America?

Did the angel get it wrong? Did Joseph Smith misunderstand the angel (three times)? Did he give an inaccurate account of what the angel said through forgetfulness or carelessness? All of those possibilities would seem to damage his credibility as a prophet quite seriously, since either his sources were unreliable or he was unreliable as a reporter of what those sources told him.

No doubt there is a good answer to all this.

There seems to be quite a lot of noise on this thread; experience suggests that it is better simply to ignore that kind of thing rather than accept the invitation to be distracted.

I wonder if anyone would care to give an answer to some of the questions above?

I already have.

Neither Rodney Meldrum nor any other prominent limited-geography advocate denies that the events of the Book of Mormon took place in North America.

So no, the angel didn't get it wrong.

And no, Joseph Smith didn't misunderstand the angel.

And no, Joseph Smith didn't give an inaccurate account of what the angel said.

So no, this doesn't damage Joseph Smith's credibility.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The biggest point of divergence between Joseph Smith's ideas and modern scholars' would be whether or not the Jaredites and Lehites found existing populations and cultures when they arrived

Probably true.

and the location of the key events of the Book of Mormon.

Maybe. Maybe not. I lean toward the latter.

[_Chap]

Neither Rodney Meldrum nor any other prominent limited-geography advocate denies that the events of the Book of Mormon took place in North America.

If I go to the FAIR website at

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai178.html

and look at the pamphlet offered there, relevantly and succinctly entitled "Where Did Book of Mormon Events Take Place?", I am told:

The LGT claims that Book of Mormon events would have taken place in a relatively small area of land and that this section of land is that of Mesoamerica (Central America) with the Isthmus of Teuhuantepec as the “narrow neck” of land.

So it would appear that either:

(a) Mesoamerica is in North America
or:
(b) The views in this pamphlet do not represent the views of any "prominent limited-geography advocate".

Assuming that I accept the claim made in DCP's post, I am left wondering which of those propositions is true. Or perhaps both of them are.

My puzzlement deepens when I go to FARMS, at

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=2&id=555

There I read:

Many Latter-day Saint scholars who believe in the divinity and historicity of the Book of Mormon now interpret those events as having occurred in a restricted region of ancient Mesoamerica. During and after those events, according to this view, people once associated with the activities recorded in the Book of Mormon may have migrated to other parts of the Americas, but the events in the narrative itself were confined to a limited region. This interpretation is called the "limited" Mesoamerican geography.

(My emphasis in the quote)

This is all quite curious. I don't know whether Matthew Roper is or is not a "prominent limited-geography advocate". But if I accept his account of the LGT presented on the FARMS website as representing the position of the eminent LDS scholars referred to, and accept the point by DCP above, that does seem to involve me in affirming the first of the two propositions above, i.e.

(a) Mesoamerica is in North America.

Perhaps I am not clever enough to follow what is going on here.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Mesoamerica is in North America.

[_antishock8]

Perhaps I am not clever enough to follow what is going on here.

Snarky comment in 3... 2... 1...

edit: Oh. Not fast enough. Already done.

[_antishock8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerica