Comment #1: “I read this somewhere and believe it to be true. ‘Does having physical evidence make something 'more true' if it is already true? Does physical evidence actually strengthen conviction? What is stronger, what you can hold in your hand or that which your soul knows by the witness of the Spirit of God to your very inner being? Which is more real, the burning testimony of truth from God or the physical evidence of something? The senses can always be deceived. Can such deception exist in the testimony of the Holy Ghost to your heart and soul? Those who are skeptical as to such things may never learn of their existence. For it is by faith that such things are accomplished and when one refuses to exercise their own faith then they must needs be lost to the spiritual things of God and His Kingdom. Perhaps it is better that the geography of the Book of Mormon never be found or revealed. Because if left unknown, it would always be placed upon the basis of the exercise of faith to come to know of its truthfulness and not on overwhelming physical evidence. And is that not where it should be, based on the spiritual and not the physical? And even with all the 'physical evidence' of the world, men who are of such disposition will continue to argue the pros and cons of the matter based upon their own dissection and analysis of the matter. So 'knowing' the geography does not solve the question of the truth of the Book of Mormon for men would still chose to interpret such known geography according to their own minds on the matter.’ If this is true, then why pursue this geographical information you do?” Benton S.
Response: I think your statement is absolutely true. As for me, I pursue geography of the Book of Mormon for three reasons: 1) I have always been fascinated by geography, 2) Knowing where Book of Mormon events happened have always made the scriptural record come more alive for me, and 3) I feel it important to point out that when people, even well meaning people, stray from the actual scriptural record in their pursuit of truth, and publish their beliefs that mislead one away from the actual scriptural record, people do not reach truth, and do a lot of damage to others along the way.
I feel the Book of Mormon should be taken at face value and not try to make it mean something else—I feel a moral obligation to Mormon and the other great men who had a hand in writing it to maintain their original meaning and not cast shadows upon the scriptural record with inaccurate and erroneous information, examples and meaning.
Knowing where the Book of Mormon Lands were located has nothing to do with one’s belief and acceptance of the scriptural record. One is spiritual, as you wrote, and the other is inquisitive.
As an example, knowing that Jericho is much lower than Jerusalem in elevation makes the Lord’s statement easier to envision: “And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead“ (Luke 10:30—emphasis mine). In addition, knowing more about that barren and desolate winding road as it quickly descends some 3500 feet to Jericho, with its rocky outcroppings, tells us more about the condition of the traveler during this seventeen mile, six-and-a-half hour journey, the numerous hiding places of thieves, and how easily it would have been to attack an unwary traveler—and how seldom might help come along.
Comment #2: “I read on a Book of Mormon website that said: “The phrasing “interior of America,” attributed unquestionably to Joseph Smith, shows that he believed in the definition of America as contained in Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary. That is, “interior” in this instance clearly refers to the territory of Mesoamerica rather than to any territory in the continental United States.” Doesn’t that answer the problem of where the LOP is located?”
Response: First of all, that is not Noah Webster’s definition, and nowhere in his work or explanations does he say that. Webster’s 1828 definition of interior is the “inland part of a country.” His definition of America is: “One of the great continents, first discovered by Sebastian Cabot, June 11, 1498, and by Columbus, or Christoval Colon, Aug. 1, the same year. It extends from the eightieth degree of North, to the fifty-fourth degree of South Latitude; and from the thirty-fifth to the one hundred and fifty-sixth degree of Longitude West from Greenwich, being about nine thousand miles in length. Its breadth at Darien is narrowed to about forty-five miles, but at the northern extremity is nearly four thousand miles. From Darien to the North, the continent is called North America, and to the South, it is called South America.”
As you can see, he does not use that concept to describe or define “interior of America.”
Another is: ”They [church leaders] made their feelings known through a primary voice of the Church at the time, the Times and Seasons, many issues of which were “edited, published and printed” by Joseph Smith. Therefore, we can today read those issues of the Times and Seasons with reasonable confidence in their “voice of authority” in speaking about the lands and peoples of the Book of Mormon.” Very few articles had Joseph Smith’s signature or name on them. He was the editor and said that he would be the editor of the paper, but that does not tell us he was overseeing every article, or that articles within the Times & Seasons carried his stamp of approval. It is an assumption, without proof, that some people make of those early issues. Many articles have been written on this, and it is even debated if Joseph was in Nauvoo during the time of many of these articles. Even Stoddard hedges his bet by saying “reasonable confidence” on the subject.
Comment #3: “I’ve heard so many things about “it came to pass” in the BOM, what exactly does it mean?”
Response: It is not a change of thought, as some have suggested, deserving a break in the record, such as a paragraph (verse). It is simply a completion of that earlier thought--meaning “to take place,” or in the past tense, “it took place.” Today it is considered an archaic term, but anciently it was used to connect two consistent thoughts or statements. While most people feel it is used way too often (1330 times in 1982 English edition), and from a strict reading view, its repetition can be annoying, it does, however, serve a purpose when we realize that Mormon is abridging the record. Thus, it also serves the purpose of allowing Mormon to jump ahead in an event without having to include the parts of that event he does not want to include in his abridgement.
Comment #4: Neal A. Maxwell has said: “Now here seems to be a great key to the Book of Mormon Geography for those who would grasp it. Lehi traveled in the Old World wilderness eight years before reaching the ‘first’ Bountiful spoken of by Brother Maxwell. Lehi sailed across the expanse of the great ocean they called Irreantum, known by us today as the Pacific Ocean, then he arrived at the ‘second’ Bountiful of which Brother Maxwell speaks. From Bountiful to Bountiful he traveled. That this is the same Bountiful of the Land of Zarahemla is apparent from the words of the Book of Mormon itself, and from the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” Wesley A.
Response: First: Neal A. Maxwell in his talk at conference was using a play on words “from Bountiful to Bountiful” in order to make the point about Laman and Lemuel throwing away their chance to lead and be accountable before God in both the Old World and the New World. It had nothing to do with geography. Second: Lehi did not land in Bountiful, Mormon makes that clear (Alma 22:28). Joseph Smith was referring to a book written by Stephens “Incidents of Travel in Central America” and that Lehi must have landed south of the ruins found there. It was simply his reflective view in light of the awesome ruins never seen before in the Americas in his time. Again, one might wonder at his reaction to the older, and even more extensive and magnificent ruins found in Andean Peru. Whatever the view, it was not an official statement and the Church has never made any official or declarative statement about any location.
No comments:
Post a Comment