Although I do agree with parts of this video I would ask what about places like Lamanai Belize? Is that an orginal name and if so that would be quite a was out of the limited geographical area if this is infact a book of mormon city. I understand that the name could have just been an influential name that stuck such as Bountiful Utah today.
Doctrine is easy. It is something we are bound to. It has never bee revealed as doctrine, and therefore, we can't say for certain where it took place.
The claim that the Book of Mormon took place in Meso-America ignores teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor. It also ignores many journal entries from the members of Zion's camp regarding the teachings of Smith and the experiences they had with the "book of Mormon" people.
Again, to make this a meso-American claim is anti-doctrinal... tough to establish doctrine by ignoring doctrine.
J.S. was the translator of the volume. To claim that his POV on the text is the meaning behind the text is to commit the Intentionalist Fallacy. Further, in 1842, Smith claimed that the text occured in Central America.
LDS do not believe in prophetical infalliblity and the like, so I fail to see your point. You are committing the Intentionalist Fallacy, something Vogel et al., does, too. The reference is Times and Seasons editorial, October 1, 1842.
If you wish to discuss Book of Mormon/LDS issues in more scope, beyond a 500-character limit with me, drop me a line at IrishLDS87_AT_gmaildotcom
You misunderstand what an LDS prophet does. He doesn't simply and suddenly know everything once he becomes a prophet. He is still a man. An inspired man, but not necessarily inspired in all his dealings. And in all honesty, it likely isn't really very important to God for us to know where the BOM took place. The doctrines we learn from the BOM are far more important, so God had/has no reason to correct those kinds of misunderstandings and misstatements made by his prophets.
J.S. was the translator of the volume. To claim that his POV on the text is the meaning behind the text is to commit the Intentionalist Fallacy. Further, in 1842, Smith claimed that the text occured in Central America.
Although I do agree with parts of this video I would ask what about places like Lamanai Belize? Is that an orginal name and if so that would be quite a was out of the limited geographical area if this is infact a book of mormon city. I understand that the name could have just been an influential name that stuck such as Bountiful Utah today.
kidlivene 1 year ago
@kidlivene Lamanai was the original name of the city, and *may* have been influenced from other sites. There really is no way to tell.
fairldsorg 1 year ago
All the events take place in that small area. Sure. Then the plates got buried in upstate New York.
highwind8124 2 years ago
Watch the mormon DNA. They did not come from Jerusalem. The DNA did not add up to your story!
Lboogie501 2 years ago
Comment removed
28thAUGUST 2 years ago
Doctrine is easy. It is something we are bound to. It has never bee revealed as doctrine, and therefore, we can't say for certain where it took place.
fairldsorg 4 years ago
There is no "doctrine" on the location of BOM lands, therefore cannot be "anti-doctrinal".
fairldsorg 4 years ago
I guess we have to define "doctrine" but it was certainly a teaching of Smith.
jandrewclark 4 years ago
The claim that the Book of Mormon took place in Meso-America ignores teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor. It also ignores many journal entries from the members of Zion's camp regarding the teachings of Smith and the experiences they had with the "book of Mormon" people.
Again, to make this a meso-American claim is anti-doctrinal... tough to establish doctrine by ignoring doctrine.
jandrewclark 4 years ago
J.S. was the translator of the volume. To claim that his POV on the text is the meaning behind the text is to commit the Intentionalist Fallacy. Further, in 1842, Smith claimed that the text occured in Central America.
TheologyBoy 3 years ago
So, Smith was only a prophet as far as he was translating? The rest was just his personal opinion? And I was a source on that 1842 claim.
jandrewclark 3 years ago
LDS do not believe in prophetical infalliblity and the like, so I fail to see your point. You are committing the Intentionalist Fallacy, something Vogel et al., does, too. The reference is Times and Seasons editorial, October 1, 1842.
If you wish to discuss Book of Mormon/LDS issues in more scope, beyond a 500-character limit with me, drop me a line at IrishLDS87_AT_gmaildotcom
TheologyBoy 3 years ago 3
You misunderstand what an LDS prophet does. He doesn't simply and suddenly know everything once he becomes a prophet. He is still a man. An inspired man, but not necessarily inspired in all his dealings. And in all honesty, it likely isn't really very important to God for us to know where the BOM took place. The doctrines we learn from the BOM are far more important, so God had/has no reason to correct those kinds of misunderstandings and misstatements made by his prophets.
RedViking1 3 years ago 2
J.S. was the translator of the volume. To claim that his POV on the text is the meaning behind the text is to commit the Intentionalist Fallacy. Further, in 1842, Smith claimed that the text occured in Central America.
TheologyBoy 3 years ago
"The claim that the Book of Mormon took place in Meso-America ignores teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor. "
it ignores some of their possible teachings but NOT all of them! I think you know just as well as we do that many of those writings are unreliable!
osmiolos 3 years ago