- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Based on research, it is clear that as General Authority B.H. Roberts said of the Book of Mormon, “there can be no doubt as to the possession of a vividly strong, creative imagination by Joseph Smith…” Also, “not a single person, place or event” has ever been proven to exist (Mormon America). DNA shows Latin Americans’s origins are Asian, not Middle Eastern. Also, much of the Book of Mormon has been taken from the King James Bible Version (errors & all). I’ve knowns a lot of this for a while, but as most members, I just put it aside. It’s true that “religion is NOT based primarily on reason or logic” – but also spirituality/feeling & experience. I believe the essential LDS teachings, despite the that lack of historical truth, still contain spiritual truths. Overall, it is a good package for spirituality, connections & experience. The way I see it, is that we’re in a book club which denies factual evidence, in favor for continuing the book club. 
It is nice to be in the LDS book club with you! You may read & say anything you want, as long as it fits with the book club rules & reading list. You are also urged to find more people to come along & commit & pretend with us! Some say otherwise, but it doesn’t take much – they’ll learn more after they join. Can’t wait to see you at our next book club meeting!
Featherina, Not everyone beleives the Book of Mormon took place in North America. You may want to check out these 2 links. (I must say, it fixes a lot of problems–by creating new problems!)
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/04/09/a-radically-different-book-of-mormon-geography-theory/ A map is here:
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/04/18/my-first-scoop-the-unpublished-malay-theory/ Since you mentioned book club, I’m disappointed that my Mormon book club just dissolved–perhaps we should start a new one? I just bought 2 new books here at the MHA Conference and had the authors sign it: Massacre at Mountain Meadows by Rick Turley, and Scattering of the Saints: Schism within Mormonism by John Hamer and Newell Bringhurst. I also have the David O McKay biography to read. Anyone game?
I skimmed through it – looks interesting, but maybe raises more questions, as you mentioned. I love to learn & read. My problem is it takes me six weeks to 2 months to read the book of the month.
MH — I’m game. For anyone interested, here’s a few books that are on my “to read” list. Perhaps we can get a consensus on the order–I have no particular order here. Scattering of the Saints – John Hamer and Newell Bringhurst
David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism – Greg Prince
Massacre at Mountain Meadows – Richard Turley and a few others
An ancient American setting for the Book of Mormon – John L Sorenson
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible & Why – Bart Ehrmann
Blacks & the Mormon Priesthood – Marcus Martins
Infidel – Ayaan Hirsi Ali
I better stop there–or I’ll overwhelm everyone. I own the first 4, (not that that matters). Are there any other books anyone wants to read? Anyone have a preference for order? Unless they’re short, I’m all for taking 6 weeks to read or something like that–It’s hard to bang out a 300-500 page book in a month.
I would like to add, “Have a Little Faith” – Mitch Albom I like your pics. I’m okay starting with “Scattering of the Saints”
I think you are probably the most well read and experienced in this kind of thing. I will follow your lead.
Anyone else have any opinions? Shall we set a time limit of about 6 weeks and I (or someone else) can start a new thread? Would it be better to have the discussion here, or in the Book/Videos discussion board? In case anyone wants a preview of the book, I have some photos from my recent trip to Independence. Check out
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2010/05/31/after-the-mha-convention-a-very-schismatic-day-4/ I moved this thread to the Book & Media Reviews section. I would suggest choosing an order and discussing the club itself here in this thread, then starting a new post in this section about each book as you begin to read it. Quote:While not endorsing the Malay Theory, Simon Southerton commented on my blog that āIām not aware of any DNA evidence from South East Asia linking populations there with the Middle East. South East Asia has been heavily populated for tens of thousands of years, with large civilizations. It is possible that Jewish sailors colonized parts of Asia though.ā
Argh!!! How many times do Americans have to be told, Israel is in Asia!!!
Actually there is plenty of evidence of contact between the Malay peninsula and the Middle East. Tjat’s how Islam got introduced there.
The books sound nice, but it is completely off topic – I was hoping for more responses & perspectives – even giving me evidence of the contrary. I would love to believe the book I’ve believed most my life is true. Sam,
Thanks for actually responding to my original post. It could be that we will never know for sure what parts of BOTH the Book of Mormon & Bible are of God & which are humanly imperfect input. Maybe once I get past my disillusionment of other issues, I may read the Book of Mormon again, looking for truths unique to it. I do believe there is wisdom in the Book of Mormon & that like so many (“parables”?) stories in the bible, maybe they’re not meant literally – but to be “likened” to us in our lives, spiritually. In the end, it seems that all that matters is what we gain spiritually.
Featherina, I think there probably was a general misunderstanding of intent. It happens all the time, unfortunately. I admire BH Roberts for expresing his view, but it’s critical to remember that he died totally committed to the BofM as a “believer” in its importance and divine inspiration and to Joseph as a prophet. That is absolutely clear from the totality of his writings about the subject, especially his later statements.
It’s also important, imo, to realize that there really is no way to know where the BofM geography was located, assuming it actually is an historical record. We just don’t have enough information to say for sure.
Finally, given the probable Asiatic origins of the Jaredites, and the probable spread of their descendants far beyond the record of the people of “the central kingdom”, it is interesting to note that the BofM itself actually might posit that the dominant ancestry of the “native Americans” is Asiatic rather than of the House of Israel. (That is my belief.)
I mean that last point seriously – and it is a badly misunderstood aspect of the BofM, imo. The book itself talks about multiple migrations that would be motivated by God, but it also describes the predominant, long-term society as having come almost surely from the steppes of Asia. Also, the record we have is of a tiny slice of those who descended from the original settlers – as evidenced by the obsession over the descendants of Jared to the exclusion of everyone else (even those who actually ruled while the “rightful heirs” were living in captivity) and the total focus on those who remained close enough to that royal line to constitute what I call the “central kindgom”.
Maybe I will write a post about the Jaredites focused solely on the lineage recorded in the Book of Jared – and the implications for population studies and DNA. Maybe not. Suffice it to say here that very few people have taken the time to look seriously at the implications of what the BofM actually presents in that section – and it has HUGE implications in multiple areas, especially DNA and population assumptions.
Old-Timer wrote:
I admire BH Roberts for expresing his view, but it’s critical to remember that he died totally committed to the BofM as a “believer” in its importance and divine inspiration and to Joseph as a prophet. That is absolutely clear from the totality of his writings about the subject, especially his later statements..
If that is really true I’m not quite sure what to make of his “Studies of the Book of Mormon”. He seems to express some skepticism and is genuinely concerned about problems and questions that he and, when he approached them, other general authorities couldn’t answer.
Featherina, Sorry, I didn’t mean to side track the discussion. (But I did like the idea of a book club!
š )Anyway, I guess my point that got lost along the way, is that we shouldn’t get too tied to one theory. I’ve done several posts on BoM geography theories. They all have strengths and weaknesses. But not only that, if we hold the Bible up to the same scrutiny, it has similar archaeological problems. For example, some people question the historicity of Moses and the Exodus. I did a post recently at
http://mormonmatters.org/2010/05/16/questions-about-the-exodus/ The entire Bible prior to about Lehi/Jeremiah’s time is suspect. There is no definitive evidence for Moses, Abraham, Joseph, Noah, Adam, Eve, Samson, Ruth, Job, etc. For that matter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John probably weren’t written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John either. Most of the letters of Paul have questionable authorship. So anyone that says the Bible has a solid foundation in archaeology isn’t telling you everything. Sure, we know where Jerusalem, Jericho, and Samaria are, but nobody has the foggiest clue where Mt Sinai really is, or where Job actually lived, or if Adam, Eve, or Jonah were real people.
So, if you’re willing to accept the Bible as a spiritual history with all its flaws and 2000 years of research, then I think it is ok to assume the Book of Mormon is equally valid with just 200 years of research. I did a post on Nahom, Saudi Arabia, and I really need to do a post on Nephi’s harbor in Yemen. I think this 2 sites are the most compelling archaeological sites for Book of Mormon locations (even if they are in the Old World.) Here is my post on Nahom.
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/01/28/nahom-archeaological-evidence-of-book-of-mormon/ One more thing–I think Book Club is a misleading title, so I propose that we change the title to something more appropriate to Featherina’s real point, and move this topic back to the History and Doctrine section. I will create a new topic called “Book Club” in the Books section. Does that sound ok with everyone? One other thing–since Featherina brought up this topic, perhaps the first book we should read is Sorenson’s geography book instead of Scattering of the Saints. Agree/Disagree? (I will say that Hamer’s book will be easier/shorter to read than Sorenson’s.)
Momonheretic, Thanks for your apology.
Old-Timer wrote:Featherina, I think there probably was a general misunderstanding of intent. It happens all the time, unfortunately.
Ray, it seems that initially, you didn’t read the original post, otherwise you wouldn’t have moved this thread to the book & media reviews. I’d appreciate it if you’d move this thread back to Gospel Doctrine. They can make a new thread about book clubs. If you want, you can change the subject of this thread to “Book of Mormon book club” or “Book of Mormon issues.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.