What exactly is a “chapel Mormon?”
and you’ll often find it used in Mormon sacrament meeting talks, Sunday school lessons, and in priesthood/relief society. “Internet Mormonism,” or apologitic Mormonism, quickly dismiss this book as lacking. Though mainly because McConkie writes some things regarding the conception of Jesus that are positively blasphemous.
You apparently aren’t aware of the controversy involved in the first publication of McConkie’s book. Many of the 12 apostles had the same view towards it as “apologetic” Mormons.
You’ll find this is a common theme in Mormon apologitics. Another good example is the rise of the “Limited Geography Theory.” Mormon religious authorities have historically maintained that the Nephite and Lamanite cultures existed across North and South America and to say otherwise was to discount the Book of Mormon. By in large they’re right in this assertation, you really can’t say your understanding of the BoM is literal while believing the LGT.
That is absolutely fascinating! I have always thought I had a literal understanding of the Book of Mormon and I’m pretty certain it teaches a geography significantly smaller than what you’re proposing. Maybe I’m just not seeing what you can see. Could you explain to me how the following passage could indicate the entire North American continent?
32 And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.
Do you think they had commuter air?
You’ll also find that chapel Mormons still old the belief that indeed the Nephites and Lamanites fully occupied North and South America.
I think there’s something you’ve missed here CCM08. Do you think it’s possible for a book to tell about a relatively small area of terrain, but allow those participants in that story over the next thousand or so years to have descendants in a wider area? I’m thinking of the descendants of Judah who traveled about as much as from Egypt to ancient Babylon (roughly the same land area a Meso America.) At the end of the Old Testament, they were still confined to about that same area, but now after 2,000 years, we find them in America (both coasts) Europe, Asia and Africa. Why isn’t the same thing possible for pre-Columbian Meso Americans?
Archeologically this is rubbish, and Mormon apologists know it. As such the new trend is simply to abandon everything Mormonism has historically taught on the subject and claim the events of the BoM actually took place on a very limited land area in central America.
I think you’re misinterpreting and combining historical assumptions to manufacture a problem. You’re confounding several related aspects into one and concluding they don’t make sense–and saying Mormon apologists are all dishonest as well. You don’t know me and I dare say you don’t know what I know, and I’d suggest you might approach the subject with a little less aggression.
It begins with Joseph Smith himself. The King Follet discourses do begin a radical departure from the religion Mormonism was in the early phase. Mormonism as it began was basically just another prophet based restorationist evangelical protestant sect, quite common in the 19th century. Modern evangelicals are the children of this restorationist theology. The only striking difference would be that Smith doctrinized the pop culture fad that Indians were really “lost tribes of Israel” and had his inspired account of this fact (the BoM). The wild aspects of Mormonism come in as Smith learns more and more from Sidney Rigdon.
The above paragraph tells me you are pretty much ignorant about these subjects. Do you know that the “lost tribes” are specifically excluded from Book of Mormon people? Do you realize that Mormonism was teaching a corporeal God as early as 1832 (as evidenced by newspaper reports)? Your alleged exposition on Mormonism is appalling.