Quotes From Lds Senior Leaders Affirming Church Teachings About The Hill Cumorah In Ny, Nephites Living Throughout North America, And More

[Bernard Gui]

Bernard Gui:

They have a VERY constricted view of what Scripture is. I'm not up on my Latin, but wouldn't it be Biblica Sola?

I stand corrected! But which EV is the straightest Bible shooter?

But they still have leaders, some with VERY BIG bank accounts.

I want to know who the Leader Supremo is. The one with the biggest account?

The one with the most training? The one with the biggest flock? Who is in charge?

The one with the best hair? With the most books published? What is it that makes

an EV leader?

So, LDS don't agree on what/where Cumorah is. Do EVs agree on the mode/need/

efficacy of baptism? Which is more significant?

Bernard

[thesometimesaint]

Bernard Gui:

From my very LDS view point; None are Biblical straight shooters.

I'm not sure is the richest. But if Pat Robertson isn't the richest, he's close.

It really didn't matter what part of the Jordan River Jesus was baptized in. So the actual location of some event is irrelevant to authority to perform such acts.

[Bernard Gui]

Bernard Gui:

From my very LDS view point; None are Biblical straight shooters.

I'm not sure is the richest. But if Pat Robertson isn't the richest, he's close.

It really didn't matter what part of the Jordan River Jesus was baptized in. So the actual location of some event is irrelevant to authority to perform such acts.

See my new thread.

Bernard

[Theophilus07]

So, LDS don't agree on what/where Cumorah is. Do EVs agree on the mode/need/

efficacy of baptism? Which is more significant?

Bernard

To say "LDS don't agree" avoids the problem. It's not just lay LDS disagreeing. It's FAIR and FARMS disagreeing with LDS GAs and prophets.

I don't pretend to receive revelation about the future, but I can see the possibility that someday, some apologist will go a little too far in disagreeing with a GA over the location of Cumorah or perhaps the LGT and offend that specific GA and get himself excommunicated. At a bare minimum, we should not be surprised to see that several FARMS articles about the LGT have silently disappeared off the website.

Theophilus07

[Bernard Gui]

To say "LDS don't agree" avoids the problem. It's not just lay LDS disagreeing. It's FAIR and FARMS disagreeing with LDS GAs and prophets.

I don't pretend to receive revelation about the future, but I can see the possibility that someday, some apologist will go a little too far in disagreeing with a GA over the location of Cumorah or perhaps the LGT and offend that specific GA and get himself excommunicated. At a bare minimum, we should not be surprised to see that several FARMS articles about the LGT have silently disappeared off the website.

Theophilus07

I would be surprised if that happened. Nor do I believe disagreeing over the location of Cumorah

or the LGT would lead to excommunication.

Bernard

[cdowis]

To say "LDS don't agree" avoids the problem. It's not just lay LDS disagreeing. It's FAIR and FARMS disagreeing with LDS GAs and prophets.

I don't pretend to receive revelation about the future, but I can see the possibility that someday, some apologist will go a little too far in disagreeing with a GA over the location of Cumorah or perhaps the LGT and offend that specific GA and get himself excommunicated. At a bare minimum, we should not be surprised to see that several FARMS articles about the LGT have silently disappeared off the website.

Theophilus07

BOM geography is not a doctrinal issue.

No one is going to be excommunicated. FYI, a GA cannot excommunicate anyone.

No articles are going to disappear from the web site. This is all pure nonsense.

[Hacedor Costoso]

cdowis:

If all you apologists know that the Prophet(s) is/are wrong - why don't you correct him/them?

We do, right here on this forum.

Do we need to send him an engraved, personal invitation?

Hacedor: I'm talking about one of YOU correcting him personally, yes. Anonymous postings on a bulletin board don't count. Send him a letter whenever you hear him speak a mis truth.

It seems to me that if you know something that the Prophet doesn't know, it is your moral and righteous obligation to tell him.

Please tell me how BOM archeology and geography has ANYTHING to do with morality and righteousness. Please explain to me how it has anything to do with the principles of the Gospel and church doctrine.

Your biting sarcasm duly noted.

Hacedor: It doesn't have to do with morality and righteousness. Each and every time the prophet misspeaks and you know better, and post it to some message board, you are allowing him to make a fool of himself. Tell him to his face or write him a letter correcting him - that would be the decent thing to do. I would expect that of my friends or followers - that's all.

After all, he is merely speaking as a man - and you know it! Why not settle this issue once and for all and tell him?

Are you blind? Read our hundreds of posts on this forum. If he is at all interested in BOM geography, he can find hundreds, thousands of posts and articles on the internet and this forum. He can read the FARMS articles, published by an organization of Brigham Young University.

Hacedor: Nope - not blind. See above. You prove my point. He most likely is not interested in BOM geography. He most likely doesn't feel the need to defend his faith and historical based beliefs on the subject. I would surmise that he gives the writings of FARMS and the postings on this board little to no attention. He's a good man doing good things and doesn't have time to argue - is my guess.

Could it be that you really don't know? Could it be that you use the crutch of "speaking as a man" when it is necessary for you as an apologist?

The prophet has no first hand information on BOM geography, unless you pretend that he is several thousand years old. He has made no claim to revelation on the subject.

BOM geography is not a moral or doctinal issue.

Hacedor: You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I don't pretend anything about the prophet. And again - you entirely missed the point. Making a fool of the prophet by stating he is wrong on message boards and in academics is the moral and doctrinal issue. I guess I just would expect more from friends and followers. I'd assume they had my back.

Only the rabid antimormons pretend that we believe and teach that EVERY word, every breath that issue forth from the mouth of a prophet is a revelation and official doctrine of the church.

Hacedor: Most of the general church membership trusts the prophet on most statements he makes. They assume rightly or wrongly that he knows what he's talking about.

It seems that apologists pretend that most mormons don't believe in following the prophet and believing what he says. It seems that apologists pretend that temple dedicatory prayers are uninspired texts that mean nothing. It seems that apologists pretend that when prophets bless entire peoples as real blood lamanites - that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'm old enough to remember the lamanites that shared my bedroom growing up. I'm also smart enough to know that when the prophet called them lamanites, he meant it.

Legitimate questions me thinks.

Methinks thou art an antiMormon who criticizes us on the one hand for letting the prophet "do our thinking", and, when we disagree with him on a non-doctrinal issue, criticizes us for denying the prophetic word.

Hacedor: You may call me names when you know virtually nothing about me at all if you desire. Hopefully it makes you feel good or something. But FYI...this "anti-mormon" helps support missionaries in your church. This "anti-mormon" donates money for fast offerings. This "anti-mormon" has missionaries and his neighbor - a first counselor in a bishopric over for dinner.

In fact, this "anti-mormon" is nothing of the sort. He simply disagrees with you and other apologists. But if you must throw out a thought terminating cliche because it makes you feel better - so be it. It doesn't affect how I feel and think about Mormons in general. Because nearly every person that I love on this earth (aside from my wife and children) is a Mormon. My parents and siblings and extended family...my wife's parents, siblings and extended family...the cousins of my children...you get the picture. I love them all enough to know that I am not "anti" anything.

We are not fools or Bozo the clown.

Hacedor: I dind't - and would never say you were. I simply disagree with you on this subject. That's all.

Hacedor

Thank you for your attempt to impress us with your intellectual fireworks. Very entertaining.

Hacedor: I was only attempting to rhetorically prove a point. My point. I don't expect you to agree with me and I don't require you to agree with me - and I won't call you names if you don't. It's just a message board.

[thesometimesaint]

Hacedor Costoso:

Where in the Scripture is that Prophets can make no mistakes, have no errant opinion, or even do the wrong thing? The LDS have NEVER regarded the Prophets as such. Why are you trying to impose a standard on us that NO ONE, except God has achieved?

I don't know as anyone in the Church assumes that everything a Prophet says is somehow to be taken as Scripture. JS certainly did not.

The exact location of baptism of Jesus is unknown. Does that somehow negate that Jesus is the Christ?

It is true that the exact location of the main events in the BoM are unrevealed. So the Church has left it up to the Scholars, and Apologists to SPECULATE on. We eagerly await further light and truth from the Lord on a variety of subjects.

[Hacedor Costoso]

Hacedor Costoso:

Where in the Scripture is that Prophets can make no mistakes, have no errant opinion, or even do the wrong thing? The LDS have NEVER regarded the Prophets as such. Why are you trying to impose a standard on us that NO ONE, except God has achieved?

I don't know as anyone in the Church assumes that everything a Prophet says is somehow to be taken as Scripture. JS certainly did not.

The exact location of baptism of Jesus is unknown. Does that somehow negate that Jesus is the Christ?

It is true that the exact location of the main events in the BoM are unrevealed. So the Church has left it up to the Scholars, and Apologists to SPECULATE on. We eagerly await further light and truth from the Lord on a variety of subjects.

Hi sometimes...

It isn't in the scriptures that Prophets can make no mistakes. And I understand that. I am not trying to impose anything on anybody.

My opinion is that the BOM Cumorah was taught as being in NY by the ONE person who should know - Joseph Smith. My opinion is that Joseph Smith taught that the Indians of North America were Lamanites - not by adoption - but by blood. My opinion is that Zelph was not a Lamanite by adoption according to those who witnessed the event.

My opinion is that apologists came up with explanations as excuses for the prophets when what the prophet's said didn't pan out scientifically, archeologically or in other ways.

I'm glad that you used the word speculate. I appreciate that honesty. In my opinion, many apologists state their opinions as fact - and it just seems like the facts should come from prophets and leaders - not apologists.

Thanks,

Hacedor

[cdowis]

Hi sometimes...

It isn't in the scriptures that Prophets can make no mistakes. And I understand that. I am not trying to impose anything on anybody.

Glad you cleared that up. Your previous post implied that any disagreement with the prophet is grounds for apostacy, or, at the least, "making a fool of him".

Again, you make the mistake that we believe that every word, every breath is true and infallible. If he expresses his opinion on any subject at all, and is factually incorrect, that he is "making a fool of himself." And you place a burden on us to correct him to "protect" his good name.

That is, to put it kindly, a very silly statement.

My opinion is that the BOM Cumorah was taught as being in NY by the ONE person who should know - Joseph Smith.

Yes, there is a hill in the state of NY called the Hill Cumorah. Every one agrees with that.

The issue is whether that is the same hill as the one mentioned in the BOM where the last battle took place. Whether there are two hills named Cumorah, or only one.

It would be interesting to see whether you are able to give us a reference where the ONE person who knows made a definitive statement.

My opinion is that Joseph Smith taught that the Indians of North America were Lamanites - not by adoption - but by blood. My opinion is that Zelph was not a Lamanite by adoption according to those who witnessed the event.

Thanks for sharing your opinions with us.

My opinion is that apologists came up with explanations as excuses for the prophets when what the prophet's said didn't pan out scientifically, archeologically or in other ways.

Yawn.

I'm glad that you used the word speculate. I appreciate that honesty.

And we appreciate your honesty as well. You have your opinions and you were willing to share with us.

In my opinion, many apologists state their opinions as fact - and it just seems like the facts should come from prophets and leaders - not apologists.

I do not speak for all apologists, but I think I understand the difference between fact and opinion.

Thanks,

Hacedor

And thank you.

PS "antiMormon" == You place yourself in opposition to the "apologists", and use a favorite antimormon argument. If you consider yourself a good LDS, then I apologize, as an apologist.

I am curious why you use this word, placing yourself on the opposite side of the line. Why not simply say "some LDS think....", etc.

[Hacedor Costoso]

cdowis - I thought you would reply to the post in which I replied to you. No biggie - but you replied to the post directed at sometimes. I thought he/she might want to reply to that.

You also speak a lot about "us" as in plural. My opinions are my opinions. I don't rely on any "standard" anti-mormon arguments. I just grew up in a different church than the church in which you grew up in I am guessing.

Glad you cleared that up. Your previous post implied that any disagreement with the prophet is grounds for apostacy, or, at the least, "making a fool of him".

Again, you make the mistake that we believe that every word, every breath is true and infallible. If he expresses his opinion on any subject at all, and is factually incorrect, that he is "making a fool of himself." And you place a burden on us to correct him to "protect" his good name.

That is, to put it kindly, a very silly statement.

It's not a silly statement at all. A temple dedicatory prayer is not opinion. It is guided by revelation or at least inspiration from God. Again - if your prophet believes he is inspired (which I assume he does) - then you should break him the bad news if you know better. But when you merely "suggest" that he could be wrong - that leaves you an escape. Convenient!

Yes, there is a hill in the state of NY called the Hill Cumorah. Every one agrees with that.

The issue is whether that is the same hill as the one mentioned in the BOM where the last battle took place. Whether there are two hills named Cumorah, or only one.

It would be interesting to see whether you are able to give us a reference where the ONE person who knows made a definitive statement.

I don't need to play word games about definitive statements made by anyone. The ONE person who knew, knew. He stated it in his words and he stated it quite clearly. The fact that he never mentioned a "second" Hill Cumorah should lead a reasonable person to conclude that he was talking about the one he was talking about.

That hill, in New York was the hill that ONE person was referring to - until OTHERS decided it wasn't. It was definitive. It was conclusive - until it wasn't.

Thanks for sharing your opinions with us.

You're quite welcome. Anytime.

Yawn.

You thank me for an opinion, then patronize me for another. Alright.

And thank you.

PS "antiMormon" == You place yourself in opposition to the "apologists", and use a favorite antimormon argument. If you consider yourself a good LDS, then I apologize, as an apologist.

I am curious why you use this word, placing yourself on the opposite side of the line. Why not simply say "some LDS think....", etc.

You're welcome again.

And in regards to your definition of anti-Mormon - I didn't know I was using a favorite anti-Mormon argument. Who decides such things? I guess it must be the same folks who decide who is an anti-Mormon eh?

Yes - I do place myself in opposition to apologists. I guess I never made the connection that apologists alone comprised the LDS church and/or what is "Mormon".

No - not a good LDS. I am an apostate. But I am not an anti-Mormon in any reasonable sense of the word.

On that, I suppose we'll disagree.

Hacedor

[thesometimesaint]

Hacedor Costoso:

You are laboring under a misconception about ancient and modern Prophets.

From Jeff Lindsay:

If any prophecy of a so-called prophet proves to be wrong, shouldn't we reject him? Isn't that the standard of Deut. 18:22? Index

Deut. 18:22 reads:

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

This doesn't exactly say that one mistake makes a false prophet. James L. Mays, editor of Harper's Bible Commentary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988, p. 226), writes:

Prophecy in the names of other gods is easily rejected, but false prophecy in God's name is a more serious matter. This dilemma requires the application of a pragmatic criterion that, although clearly useless for judgments on individual oracles, is certainly a way to evaluate a prophet's overall performance.

The problem with applying Deut. 18:22 to a single, individual prophecy is that some prophecies can be fulfilled in complex ways or at times much later than anticipated by the hearers. Moreover, God sometimes appears to reverse certain prophecies, as He says He is free to do in Jeremiah 18:7-10:

7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;

10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Be careful in how you apply Deut. 18:22, for you threaten to reject some true prophets in the Bible! There are examples where a true prophet prophesied something which did not happen as he stated, to the best of our knowledge. An example is found in the story of Jonah, who was told by God to prophecy to the people of Nineveh. Jonah prophesied that the people would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3:4) - no loopholes were offered, just imminent doom. God changed things, however, when the people repented and He chose to spare them - much to the chagrin of that imperfect (yet still divinely called) prophet, Jonah. Jonah, in fact, was "displeased ... exceedingly" and "very angry" (Jonah 4:1) about this change from God, perhaps because it made Jonah look bad. In spite of an "incorrect" prophecy and in spite of the obvious shortcomings of Jonah, he was a prophet of God and the Book of Jonah in the Bible is part of the Word of God. Yet if that sacred text had been lost, only to be restored by Joseph Smith, perhaps as part of the Book of Mormon, it would be assaulted as the most damning evidence against Joseph Smith. Just imagine how the critics would dismiss the Book of Jonah as being evil, contradictory, ludicrous, anti-Biblical, unscientific, and unchristian (of course, there are plenty already who reject it as it is, unable to believe major parts of the story).

The prophet Ezekiel provides another example of how true prophets may err or give prophecies of uncertain accuracy. In Ezekiel chapters 26, 27, and 28, we read that Tyre (a fortified island city) would be conquered, destroyed, and plundered by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. The riches of Tyre would go to Babylon (Ezek. 26:12). Nebuchadnezzar's army did lay siege to Tyre, and its inhabitants were afflicted, apparently so much that they shaved their heads bald, as prophesied in Ezek. 27:31. However, the 13-year Babylonian siege apparently was not quite as successful as Ezekiel had predicted, perhaps because the land-based tactics of Babylonian sieges were less effective against a fortified island city with significant maritime power. The result of the siege may have been a compromise or treaty rather than total destruction and plunder, for Ezekiel 29:17-20 reports that the predicted plundering did not take place. Almost as if in compensation, the Lord now announces that He will give Egypt to the Babylonians, which is the theme of chapter 29. Here are verses 17-20:

17 And it came to pass in the seven and twentieth year, in the first month, in the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:

19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.

20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD.

Yes, Tyre was eventually destroyed, but its complete destruction apparently did not occur during the Babylonian siege, and certainly the Babylonian army did not get the riches of Tyre as has been prophesied. It is Ezekiel himself who reports this "prophetic failure." (The analysis above is derived from an article by Daniel C. Peterson in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1995, pp. 49-50.)

D.C. Pyle has also commented on Ezekiel's prophecy of Tyre:

Of course, my favorite part of the prophecy against Tyre is the part found in Ezekiel 26:14 and 27:36, where the Lord states that Tyre would "not be rebuilt" and "exist no more forever."

Of course, after it was left unconquered by the Babylonian armies, it eventually fell to the Greeks under Alexander and was destroyed by his armies.

But then, the city which was never to be rebuilt forever rose again to wealth and power in 125 BCE! During the Roman period, the city rose to even more prominence and had a Christian community living in the mainland portion. Muslims reduced the city to ashes in 1291. It was rebuilt again sometime after this. In 1983, it had an estimated population of 23,000.

The prophecy stated that the place would "be a bare rockface for spreading nets and would never be rebuilt" but today, the place has become a fairly important maritime center.

To those who refuse to believe that Tyre still exists today, pictures can be see at http://tyros.leb.net/tyre/index.html. Note that there are many buildings - it has been rebuilt. A literal interpretation of Ezekiel's prophecy coupled with a belief in Biblical inerrancy leads to obvious problems.

My purpose in discussing the prophecies about Tyre is not to question the truthfulness of the Bible (it is true - we just need to struggle to understand it properly, as we must with all scripture and all prophecy, and we need to understand its potential limitations). My primary purpose in discussing Tyre is to point out that an overly critical attitude and a strict application of Deut. 18:22 may reject even true, Biblical prophets. If we try hard enough to find reasons to reject a prophet, we will surely succeed - but beware lest we judge unwisely and reject those whom God has sent and anointed, even though they be mortal and fallible. As for Tyre never being rebuilt, I think it's fair to mention that Hebrew writers used extreme words like "never" or "all" or "forever" in a rather loose way. Tyre was "never" to rebuilt and animal sacrifices were to continue "forever" - but these expressions can best be understood as figures of speech rather than absolutes. But if we're going to take the reasonable, thoughtful path of understanding the Bible rather than looking for apparent flaws to condemn it out of hand, we should extend the same courtesy to the Book of Mormon and the words of modern prophets.

Another example to consider is the prophet Jeremiah - a great and inspired prophet - who prophesied that king Zedekiah would "die in peace" (Jer. 34:4-5). Critics could argue that this prophecy did not prove to be true, for Zedekiah saw his sons killed by the conquering Babylonians and was himself blinded and put in prison, where he died in captivity - not in peace (Jer. 52:10-11). Of course, the point is that he would not be killed by the sword, but die of natural causes - albeit in prison - yet to the critics, it may look like a case of a false prophecy. This case is certainly less clear-cut than the prophecy of Ezekiel discussed above, yet also serves to warn us against harsh judgments.

Many LDS critics attempt to condemn Joseph Smith using a standard that would, if applied to Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Jonah, also condemn the Old Testament as a fraud.

Joseph Smith made some amazingly correct prophecies: predicting in 1832 that a civil war would erupt, beginning in South Carolina, with Great Britain to be involved; prophesying that tobacco is harmful to human health and giving a dietary code with nutritional principles much like the modern "food pyramid;" predicting his own martyrdom; prophesying of the global success that the restored Church would experience, with persecutions; predicting that the Saints would become established in the Rockies; and predicting other important events relative to Native Americans, the United States of America, the Church, future calamities, many details related to specific individuals, etc. Several of these fulfilled prophecies are discussed in detail on my LDSFAQ page, prophecies that have been fulfilled. The prophetic nature of the Book of Mormon is also noteworthy. Even mundane passages such as the physical description of Nephi's journey through the Arabian peninsula serve as validated prophecies, in a sense, for none of the many accurate details in the text could have been fabricated in 1830 based on what was then known about Arabia, and the "direct hits" (e.g., the place Bountiful and the burial site named Nahom) serve as evidences vindicating Joseph Smith as a prophet.

The specific prophecies that are said to be false or incorrect by critics are typically based on hearsay or unreliable sources or are based on incorrect interpretations of what is said. There is no reliable evidence to say that Joseph Smith fails any sound test based on Deut. 18:22. Some of the most common specific objections are treated in my answers below, including a discussion of the Missouri temple prophecy (from Section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants) and the Lord's command to David Patten (Section 114 of the Doctrine and Covenants).

For further reading on this topic, Michael T. Griffith has a useful article, Vindicating Prophecy: Why the Anti-Mormon View of Prophecy Is Invalid, which deals with false standards applied by anti-Mormons to LDS prophecy and prophets - standards which would invalidate the Bible as well. That article is part of his book One Lord, One Faith (Horizon Publishers, 1996). Below is a portion of that article (quoted here since the Web link may have quit working):

In 2 Samuel 7:5-17, we read that the prophet Nathan unequivocally prophesied to David that through his son Solomon the Davidic empire would be established "forever," that the children of Israel would dwell in the promised land "and move no more," and that the "children of wickedness" would no longer afflict them. These things are quite clearly stated. No conditions are attached to these promises, none whatsoever. [Yet this prophecy clearly did not prove successful if it is interpreted literally.]...

[Another example of a problematic Biblical prophecy is] Judges 13:5, where it is recounted that an angel promised Samson's mother that Samson would "begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines." No matter how liberal or expansive one wants to be with the facts of Israelite history (as recorded in the Bible or elsewhere), there is no way it can reasonably be concluded that Samson fulfilled this prophecy.

Not only did Samson fail to even "begin" to free Israel from the Philistines, but (1) there were times when he consorted with Philistine women, (2) he married a Philistine, (3) he himself never even led any Israelite troops against the Philistines, and (4) the Philistines eventually humiliated him.

Moreover, and most importantly, Israel actually lost ground to the Philistines during Samson's tenure. Judges 13-16 illustrates Philistine encroachment into Hebrew territory. The Samson narrative documents the eastward expansion of the Philistines by mentioning the Philistine presence in Timnah and Lehi, both in the strategic valley of Sorek (Achtemeier 1985:787-791). This Philistine expansion worsened the land shortage that eventually forced the Danites to migrate northward.

Of course, the nonfulfillment of Judges 13:5 can be attributed to Samson's failure to live according to his Nazarite calling. In addition to his sexual liaisons, he married a Philistine, ate unclean food, drank wine, and allowed his hair to be cut. Therefore, it could be said that the angel's prophecy was nullified by Samson's behavior. However, the angel placed absolutely no conditions on his promise that Samson would begin to deliver Israel from the Philistines. He simply declared that Samson would do so.

[Log]

But EVs have no leaders. They have the magic Get Out Of Jail Free card...sola scriptura

Bernard

Scripture consists not in what is written, but what is understood - whose understanding is binding? If nobody's, then why do they reject ours?

[russianwolfe]

NOw as Ezra Taft Benson taught:

1. Preach the Gospel

2. Perfect the Saints

3. Redeem the dead.

That is the 3 fold mission of the church. Can anyone point me to the part of this mission statement that includes correcting the follies of ignorant men as to the location of certain scriptural events? Seems to me that we dwell on trivialities and ignore the really important thihngs, like just and mercy and forgiveness. Or am I mistaken?

Marvin

[Theophilus07]

I would be surprised if that happened. Nor do I believe disagreeing over the location of Cumorah

or the LGT would lead to excommunication.

Bernard

It might if an LDS GA read that an apologist belittled his opinion in print.

Theophilus07

[Theophilus07]

BOM geography is not a doctrinal issue.

Not yet. But repeatedly belittling of GAs' statements about BoM geography and whether American Indians are Lamanites may well be considered by an angry GA to be disrespectful and "steadying of the ark."

No one is going to be excommunicated. FYI, a GA cannot excommunicate anyone.

Tell that to apostles Parley P. Pratt, John Taylor Jr., Mattias Cowley, and Richard Lyman, along with the non-apostolic September Six.

No articles are going to disappear from the web site. This is all pure nonsense.

The LDS Church has a long record of deliberate concealment, from the deception about Joseph Smith's polygamous activities (from even his wife), to its refusal to release its American financial statements (despite all other major Churches' open disclosure). Even now, the Joseph Smith official website conceals his plural wives. You don't have to believe me, just take a look and tell me how many are mentioned. My bet would be none.

Actually, the more I think about this, the more I think the LDS Church really might excommunicate an apologist whe repeatedly belittles GAs' statements. I think I'll just save this message and when that excommunication happens, I'll quote it in my "I told you so." post.

Theophilus07

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Theo,

Do you know many general authorities? I know several. I know several who believe in the LGT of the Book of Mormon. I know also that President Packer as well as Elder Eyring are both inclined towards it. There are likely others, but either way, the gist is that there is no doctrine on it.

[Hacedor Costoso]

Theo,

Do you know many general authorities? I know several. I know several who believe in the LGT of the Book of Mormon. I know also that President Packer as well as Elder Eyring are both inclined towards it. There are likely others, but either way, the gist is that there is no doctrine on it.

Matthew - not meaning to rain on your picnic here - but can you lead us to writings or public statements by either Packer or Eyring that attest to what you are saying?

Oh...but wait...according to others on this thread....

If they did say it - why isn't it safe to assume that they are saying it as men? Why does their word hold more water than Joseph Smith's word? And if their word is equal to that of JS - who are we to believe?

Thanks,

Hacedor

[cdowis]

Not yet. But repeatedly belittling of GAs' statements about BoM geography and whether American Indians are Lamanites may well be considered by an angry GA to be disrespectful and "steadying of the ark."

Tell that to apostles Parley P. Pratt, John Taylor Jr., Mattias Cowley, and Richard Lyman, along with the non-apostolic September Six.

The LDS Church has a long record of deliberate concealment, from the deception about Joseph Smith's polygamous activities (from even his wife), to its refusal to release its American financial statements (despite all other major Churches' open disclosure). Even now, the Joseph Smith official website conceals his plural wives. You don't have to believe me, just take a look and tell me how many are mentioned. My bet would be none.

Actually, the more I think about this, the more I think the LDS Church really might excommunicate an apologist whe repeatedly belittles GAs' statements. I think I'll just save this message and when that excommunication happens, I'll quote it in my "I told you so." post.

Theophilus07

The antis have poisoned your mind, my dear fellow.

[Theophilus07]

The antis have poisoned your mind, my dear fellow.

I will be delighted to include your remark above in my "I told you so" post.

Theophilus07

[Theophilus07]

Theo,

Do you know many general authorities? I know several. I know several who believe in the LGT of the Book of Mormon. I know also that President Packer as well as Elder Eyring are both inclined towards it. There are likely others, but either way, the gist is that there is no doctrine on it.

Matthew, I've never met you and I know nothing about you and your trustworthiness. I will assume for this post that you are entirely trustworthy. Be that as it may, you've made unverifiable claims which may or may not be true -- I cannot oversemphasize this -- and that has nothing to do with you personally. However, your post's overall appeal to authority, the unverifiability of your claims, and how convenient it is that your unverifiable and undocumentable claims support your position make me justifiably skeptical.

Until you provide verifiable documentation for your claims, I'm afraid I am unable to accept them.

Theophilus07

[thesometimesaint]

Theophilus07:

When you attempt to belittle someone else because of their beliefs. You have crossed the line from being an Apologist to being a jerk.

[Theophilus07]

Theophilus07:

When you attempt to belittle someone else because of their beliefs. You have crossed the line from being an Apologist to being a jerk.

Since I'm a critic and not an apologist, I'll assume you're not directing this diatribe at me personally.

I'm uncertain from your post exactly what you're getting at, so I'll just point out that what I'm referring to is when LDS apologsts in this forum (and other forums) react to LDS GA statements (from, among others, President Joseph Fielding Smith) against the LGT and against a Mesoamerican location for Cumorah by belittling their statements, claiming they were just speaking as ill-informed laypersons and not as Prophets. "Speaking out publicly against the Lord's Appointed leaders" is occasionally and formally given by LDS ecclesiastical courts as reasons for excommunicationn. I'm not aware that apologists are immune from this charge.

Theophilus07

[Sargon]

Im not sure who Hacedor would like for us to correct. The OP contained the words of only dead prophets. Are you suggesting we figure out how to time travel and correct them? If a modern day prophet expresses an opinion and it is discovered that his opinion probably is not correct, then sure, someone will correct him. No problem. If Pres. Hinckley says in general conference that it is his opinion that blue is the best color in the world, you rest assured that Packer will tell him that no, yellow is really the best color in the world. Are we to then have a crisis? Are the brethren and the church in disarray? Is this the end of the LDS as we know it?

This very thing actually happened not very long ago. There is a scanned letter floating around on the internet from the spokesman of the first presidency declaring that the brethren have long maintained that the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon is indeed the same as the one in NY.

When this was discovered, the spokesman/secretary issued a statement correcting the problem. He clarified that the Church has long held a neutral stance on Book of Mormon geography.

Finally, Wilson does not mention the fact that the Latter-day Saint Church has no official position on Book of Mormon geography,68 or that other Latter-day Saint General Authorities have advised caution in theorizing about Book of Mormon geography.69 Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency of the Church, has recently clarified the Church's position on Book of Mormon geography.

The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.70

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.ph...252aWV3LnBocA==

The statements made by former and present LDS leaders are all considered as merely the ideas and opinions of those men. They have always been understood to be such. Joseph Smith's opinion of the matter apparently changed more than once. But for as long as anyone can remember, the church has never issued an official position, and has always maintained that it has no position. It simply is not all that interested. We do not rely on archaeological proof for the veracity of our claims. All such discussions among the brethren are the result of curiosity, not doctrinal dispute.

Sargon

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I think Sargon bringing up the quote in question is useful, though obviously won't satisfy everyone.

Hacer: Writing or public statements - No, simply because I am too busy to track down every reference on what to me is a matter of one group trying to condemn another group for their beliefs.

However, I will tell you that my knowledge of Elder Packer comes from his bringing it up as a point item in a multi-day training with Mission Presidents in the Pacific area in regards to missionaries talking about this very subject when there are other things out there. President Packer to my knowledge has never written anything definitive on anything aside from morality, saving doctrines, and missionary work. Then, I'm not prone to read all of his writings, so you are welcome to find some.

Elder Eyring will be the easiest I assume. Perhaps I may even do a search through my books. I have quotes from him somewhere on the topic, so he would be your easiest case.

Theo:

Matthew, I've never met you and I know nothing about you and your trustworthiness. I will assume for this post that you are entirely trustworthy. Be that as it may, you've made unverifiable claims which may or may not be true -- I cannot oversemphasize this -- and that has nothing to do with you personally. However, your post's overall appeal to authority, the unverifiability of your claims, and how convenient it is that your unverifiable and undocumentable claims support your position make me justifiably skeptical.

Until you provide verifiable documentation for your claims, I'm afraid I am unable to accept them.

I appreciate your admitting that while I am entirely trustworthy that you are justifiable skeptical of what I say because it â??convenientlyâ? may prove my point. An interesting twist in being tactful while refusing to give ground and creating a logical fallacy. Which is fine Theo. Why? Because this is not a doctrine of Salvation. While you may believe one way about this topic and others another, if we are doing the best with what we truly hold to be true in this matter, Christ will condemn neither party, save for anything lacking in love or compassion in hammering out views. Therefore, as I have no intention of arguing further on something that has been argued here countless times in the six and a half years I have been on this board, I see no point in trying to push it or to get into a heated debate over right and wrong in an eternally negligible matter. I think you are honestly a good person, honestly believe what you are saying, and I am completely un-skeptical about any sources you bring up.

Matt