THE BOOK OF MORMON AND ITS PURPORTED ORIGIN IS FILLED WITH NONSENSE AND FRAUD
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF JOSEPH SMITH RECEIVING THE GOLD PLATES
MORMONS BELIEVE THAT THE "LAMANITE" AMERICAN INDIANS WERE JEWS WHO ARRIVED IN 600 B.C.!
MORMONS PROCLAIM THE BOOK OF MORMON WAS NORTH AMERICAN HISTORY!
OTHER MORMONS BELIEVED THE BOOK OF MORMON WAS NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICAN HISTORY!
21ST CENTURY MORMONS BELIEVE THAT THE BOOK OF MORMON MAY BE JUST GOOD LITERATURE!
Fictional Book of Mormon South America Geography
WIKIPEDIA ENCYCLOPEDIA DISCUSSION
A commonly held belief among the LDS for many years was that Lehi's group landed on the coast of Chile. This is supported by a record written in 1836 by Frederick G. Williams which suggests that Joseph Smith once stated that Lehi "landed on the continent of South America, in Chile, thirty degrees, south latitude." In the mid-1970s, several books were published by LDS researchers that proposed this geographical model (Priddis 1975).
A booklet published in 1882 by Franklin D. Richards made the claim that this information had been received by revelation through Joseph Smith.
LEHI'S TRAVELS.—Revelation to Joseph the Seer. The course that Lehi and his company traveled from Jerusalem to the place of their destination: They traveled nearly a south, southeast direction until they came to the nineteenth degree of north latitude; then, nearly east to the Sea of Arabia, then sailed in a southeast direction, and landed on the continent of South America, in Chili [sic], thirty degrees south latitude.
Challengers of the limited geography model use this statement, along with the teachings of early Mormon missionaries supporting the idea of a landing in Chile, as evidence that the widespread belief in the hemispheric geography model was based upon a revelation through Joseph Smith, and that any information to the contrary constitutes "apologetic denial" (Vogel 2004, p. 629 note 18). In addition, the story of Zelph is used to support the idea the Joseph Smith promoted a hemispheric geography for the Book of Mormon. LDS scholars point out that in the earlier document authored by Frederick G. Williams, that the words "Lehi's Travels" and "Revelation to Joseph the Seer" do not appear in this text as they do in the subsequent 1882 publication (Roper 2004).
A paper authored by LDS affiliated research group FARMS notes that the document authored by Frederick G. Williams "does not attribute the statement to Joseph Smith and, although Richards follows closely the Williams account, he gives no source for the statement or the title. There is no known earlier historical evidence associating this specific statement with Joseph Smith."
claim of a landfall in Chile may have actually originated with Orson
Pratt, who often included the Chile landing hypothesis in his writings
and said that "this view was actually based upon his own inference from
the Book of Mormon text" (Roper 2004). In a talk given in 1872, Pratt
described Lehi's group as "landing on the western coast of what is now
called South America. As near as we can judge from the description of
the country contained in this record the first landing place was in
Chili [sic], not far from where the city of Valparaiso now stands"
(Pratt 1872, p. 325). Pratt's opinions were incorporated into the
geographical footnotes that he added into the 1879 edition of the Book
of Mormon (Sorenson & Roper 2002).
Actual South America Geography
Actual South America Geography
Archaeology will prove the purported history of ancient literature.
Biblical Archaeology Review (Yes, Jerusalem did and does exist)
21ST CENTURY MORMONS BELIEVE THAT THE BOOK OF MORMON MAY NOT BE COMPLETE AMERICAN HISTORY!
MORMONS EXCITED ABOUT NEW THEORIES THAT ARE REPLACING THEIR OLD THEORIES
THE BOOK OF MORMON DOES NOT MENTION THE PRACTICE OF HUMAN SACRIFICE!
WRONG WAY SAILING BY THE JAREDITES, MULEK, AND LEHI?
ARCHAEOLOGY REFUTES THE BOOK OF MORMON
BOOK OF MORMON AUTHORSHIP STUDY
1 Timothy 1:3-4 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia; remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith.
IRRATIONAL MORMON SCHOLAR CONCLUSIONS
MORMON PROPHET DEFENDS THE BOOK OF MORMON FICTION
MORMONS USE ACTUAL BIBLICAL HISTORY TO VALIDATE BOOK OF MORMON FICTION
Pro-Mormon historians have traditionally relied upon four arguments in dismissing the Spaulding Enigma: (1) that Solomon Spalding wrote only a single novel, Manuscript Story - Conneaut Creek; (2) that Doctor Hurlbut's hateful desire to destroy Joseph Smith and the Church renders his evidence hopelessly biased and unacceptable; (3) that Sidney Rigdon was not in Pittsburgh until 1822 and never had any connections with the print shops there; and (4) that Rigdon's first contact with Joseph Smith took place in late 1830, many months after The Book of Mormon had already been published. Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon, page 99.
Church removes racial references in Book of Mormon headings
By Peggy Fletcher Stack
The Salt Lake Tribune
Published Dec 17, 2010
The LDS Church has made subtle — but significant — changes to chapter headings in its online version of the faith’s signature scripture, The Book of Mormon, toning down some earlier racial allusions.
The words “skin of blackness” were removed from the introductory italicized summary in 2 Nephi, Chapter 5, in describing the “curse” God put on disbelieving Lamanites.
Deeper into the volume, in Mormon, Chapter 5, the heading changes from calling Lamanites “a dark, filthy, and loathsome people” to “because of their unbelief, the Lamanites will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them.”
In both cases, the text itself remains unchanged.
Members of the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe founder Joseph Smith unearthed a set of gold plates from a hill in upstate New York in 1827 and translated the ancient text into English. The account, known as The Book of Mormon, first published in 1830, primarily tells the story of God’s dealings with two Israelite civilizations living in the New World. One derived from a single family who fled Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and eventually splintered into two groups, known as Nephites and Lamanites.
Since that initial printing, millions of copies have been distributed throughout the world in more than 160 languages.
Chapter summaries were added in the 1920s, then rewritten by the late LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie in 1981. That same year, a verse that used “white and delightsome” to describe what will happen to dark-skinned peoples when they repent was changed to “pure and delightsome.”
Critics argued the change was made to address allegations of racism, since the Utah-based faith had a racial policy that, until 1978, barred blacks from being ordained to the church’s all-male priesthood.
Not so, said Royal Skousen, a linguistics professor at Brigham Young University, who has noted every change in the scriptural text from 1830 to the present. Skousen said Smith himself changed “white” to “pure” in 1840, but left it elsewhere in the book.
“Eight other verses still use the phrase,” Skousen said. “If the [church] was just responding to sensitivities, why wouldn’t they have changed all the other ones?” (still a racist church)
A decade later, the faith’s governing First Presidency approved minor changes to some Book of Mormon chapter headings, explained church spokesman Michael Purdy.
The tweaks described above were made in several foreign editions, including Portuguese, Spanish and German translations. The original headings remained in most English editions until 2004, when Doubleday published the first trade version of the LDS scripture and implemented the editing.
Until this month, the 1981 headings remained in the church’s online version at lds.org. When the church upgraded its website, the Doubleday changes were included online. The former version will continue — for now — in the printed English versions.
“When these types of changes are made, they are rolled out to various online and print editions as they become available,” Purdy said in a statement. “A new English edition of The Book of Mormon is not scheduled to be printed at present. Since these changes are so minor, it is not necessary to include them until it is printed.”
Nathan Richardson, a BYU graduate student at the time of the Doubleday edition, noticed some changes and decided to do a side-by-side comparison.
Richardson, now a speech therapist and book designer in Orem, concluded that the changes were done for “clarity, a change in emphasis and to stick closer to the scriptural language.” (His study can be seen at ldsphilosopher.com)
Skousen, editor of a 2009 Yale edition of The Book of Mormon, sees the heading changes as a nod to contemporary readers.
LDS officials don’t want readers to focus on the kind of “overt statements about race that were in McConkie’s 1981 summaries,” he said. “There is a [personal] interpretation simply by what you choose to put in them. It’s not a question of dishonesty or trying to hide things.”
The online headings also change many words from a more archaic to a modern language, Skousen said. “Given our times, I think they did the right thing.”
To Grant Hardy, an LDS historian at the University of North Carolina in Asheville who edited a “reader’s edition” of The Book of Mormon in 2005, the changes are interesting.
“Headings do give readers a preview, a take on how to interpret what happens,” Hardy said. “The church is clearly downplaying the ‘skin of blackness.’ ”
Still, Hardy does not believe racist views are unusually prominent in the Mormon scripture.
“Even though this gets a lot of attention, there aren’t that many verses that talk about skin color,” Hardy said. “Race is not a main theme of The Book of Mormon. When it is talking about Lamanites, it is mostly cultural and spiritual differences.”
There is a “temptation to read ancient texts in terms of modern suppositions,” he said. “Probably everybody in history was racist in terms of modern America.”
Does Hardy think the Nephites were racist? Well, yes, he said, but that would not be surprising.
Downplaying that element, Hardy said, “probably fits The Book of Mormon better overall.”
Published Monday, June 30, 2008
Albert Lea Tribune
The raid at the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints polygamist compound in Texas has drawn national attention in recent weeks. In fact there are several similar Mormon fundamentalist sects scattered throughout the western U.S. The reason for these polygamist splinter groups today is due to followers of the Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, taking his revelation seriously: live polygamy or be damned.
When Smith introduced his doctrine of eternal marriage, it was directly tied to plural marriage. Verse 1 of the Mormon scriptures, Doctrine and Convenants (i.e.: D&C), Section 132, reads that the revelation was in answer to his inquiry regarding some Old Testament Bible characters having “many wives and concubines.” Verse 4 goes on to state, “I will reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant and if ye abide not in that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.” One can see the pressure the fundamentalists are under here. The importance of polygamy to early Mormon leaders is also seen in the extensive number of marriages they undertook. Joseph Smith had at least 34 wives, Brigham Young over 50.
Quite revealing, however, is the fact that Mormonism’s own Book of Mormon denounces plural wives as “abominable” in Jacob 2:23-24. In every edition of the D&C from 1835 to 1876, Section 101:4 denounced polygamy also. At this time Section 132 condoning it was inserted. Since there was an obvious conflict, the “anti-polygamy” section was quietly removed.
In 1890, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints President Wilford Woodruff issued the manifesto that ended the official LDS practice of polygamy. The LDS church, however, hasn’t abandoned the doctrine of polygamy as a righteous principle, only its current earthly practice. Because Section 132 has not been expunged and continues to be published as doctrine, many will continue to submit to it. The recent intervention in Texas only continues the legacy in this maze of confusion.
B. Kent Larson
LDS filmmaker says Book of Mormon set in North America
By Sharon Haddock
Published: Friday, Oct. 2, 2009
MIDWAY — LDS filmmaker Kieth Merrill says he picked the background for "The Testaments" by default, and if he had it to do over, he would have sought locations in North America rather than Central and South America.
Speaking Friday at the Book of Mormon Prophecies Conference at the Zermatt, Merrill said he believes evidence supports a North American backdrop in the "promised land" for the Book of Mormon stories, wars and visits from Jesus Christ.
"I know that the Book of Mormon is true. I can't say I know where it all took place," Merrill said as he addressed a packed house as the conference's keynote speaker. "I'm the guy who made the biggest, most expensive film (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) has ever made, and I put it in the wrong place."
Merrill said the common notion that the Mayan and Aztec peoples and other such civilizations known to have lived in Central America during Book of Mormon history influenced his choice of jungle location. (He ultimately filmed "The Testaments" on the Hawaiian island of Kauai after roaming the jungles of the Yucatan.)
"I can't wait to redo the movie and put buffalo in it," he said.
WORD FAITH INDEX
CATHOLIC CHURCH INDEX