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

[thesometimesaint]

Theophilus07:

Nothing personal.

I assume you are a thoughtful, considerate person, and would never resort to belittling someone because of their beliefs. I used the term "belittling" because that is the term you did use.

I too am no apologist. But I do sense in your comments that you are trying to associate the members of F.A.R.M.S/Maxwell Institute and the disreputable people who belittle the GA's of the Church. Nothing could be further from the truth. TTBOMK ALL of the officers of the Maxwell Institute are loyal conscientious members of the Church.

Please let me know if I am wrong about your comments.

[Sargon]

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

Unfortunately there are some whose mission in life is to not be satisfied, no matter what.

Sargon

[Hacedor Costoso]

I think the quote is useful to the conversation - and I appreciate everyone's input.

Maybe I'm just too old or too stubborn to change - but I was brought up in a different church it appears. Nobody should be insulted by that - it is simply my opinion. Opinions can be changed - although I don't know if that one ever will.

I guess it just comes down to my belief that what JS said in his day was definitive in his day. There didn't need to be any statements saying that it was "official" - because he "knew".

For those willing to still engage in this topic - wasn't what JS said at the time taken as gospel?

I know the earring advisory hasn't been canonized - but don't people naturally question the obedience of church members based on how they "follow the prophet" on such issues?

Compare - contrast - comments?

Thanks,

Hacedor

[Sargon]

I think the quote is useful to the conversation - and I appreciate everyone's input.

Maybe I'm just too old or too stubborn to change - but I was brought up in a different church it appears. Nobody should be insulted by that - it is simply my opinion. Opinions can be changed - although I don't know if that one ever will.

I guess it just comes down to my belief that what JS said in his day was definitive in his day. There didn't need to be any statements saying that it was "official" - because he "knew".

For those willing to still engage in this topic - wasn't what JS said at the time taken as gospel?

I know the earring advisory hasn't been canonized - but don't people naturally question the obedience of church members based on how they "follow the prophet" on such issues?

Compare - contrast - comments?

Thanks,

Hacedor

Joseph Smith, as a person, was not very good at taking criticism, especially in public. But that said, he very frequently faced opposition within the ranks of the church over doctrinal matters. Consider the episode early on when certain members of the church believed they had received revelations from God, which were just as binding as Joseph's. Also polygamy was always controversial. Some in Zion's camp questioned his prophethood based on his sometimes bad temper.

But yes, speaking broadly, when Joseph Smith said he knew something by revelation from God, it was usually accepted by most. However, in this case, I know of no instance when Joseph claimed to have received revelation from God on the topic of the hill cumorah.

Members are prone to judge others based on their obedience to the prophet's council. Perhaps it is not the most Christ-like thing to do, but it is only natural to wonder why some reject the council of the Lord's prophet.

Sargon

[Hacedor Costoso]

Joseph Smith, as a person, was not very good at taking criticism, especially in public. But that said, he very frequently faced opposition within the ranks of the church over doctrinal matters. Consider the episode early on when certain members of the church believed they had received revelations from God, which were just as binding as Joseph's. Also polygamy was always controversial. Some in Zion's camp questioned his prophethood based on his sometimes bad temper.

But yes, speaking broadly, when Joseph Smith said he knew something by revelation from God, it was usually accepted by most. However, in this case, I know of no instance when Joseph claimed to have received revelation from God on the topic of the hill cumorah.

Members are prone to judge others based on their obedience to the prophet's council. Perhaps it is not the most Christ-like thing to do, but it is only natural to wonder why some reject the council of the Lord's prophet.

Sargon

Thanks Sargon - and I understand what you're saying.

I guess I would disagree that he needed to say anything "by revelation from God". During the early days of the church, much was said and done that was taken as being revelatory. Much of what JS said and claimed wasn't canonized in his life, but later by the body of the church.

I guess that since Joseph Smith never mentioned a second Cumorah, to me it is not a leap to assume that the Cumorah on which he met Moroni and received revelation, was the only Cumorah.

Logically, I leap from there to the conclusion that the whole story was made up because they haven't found hundreds of thousands of remains in that area.

To me, claiming a second Cumorah - based on the LGT is simply putting the cart before the horse - something akin to saying "Since the church is true, there has to be a Cumorah somewhere - and since it isn't here - there must be a 2nd Cumorah because this one aint it....oh....and by the way....did I mention that THERE HAS TO BE A CUMORAH - because the church is true?"

So - again - I understand where you're coming from - and I used to believe the same way. Not I just have a hard time with it.

Thanks,

Hacedor

[Sargon]

Thanks Sargon - and I understand what you're saying.

I guess I would disagree that he needed to say anything "by revelation from God". During the early days of the church, much was said and done that was taken as being revelatory. Much of what JS said and claimed wasn't canonized in his life, but later by the body of the church.

I guess that since Joseph Smith never mentioned a second Cumorah, to me it is not a leap to assume that the Cumorah on which he met Moroni and received revelation, was the only Cumorah.

Logically, I leap from there to the conclusion that the whole story was made up because they haven't found hundreds of thousands of remains in that area.

To me, claiming a second Cumorah - based on the LGT is simply putting the cart before the horse - something akin to saying "Since the church is true, there has to be a Cumorah somewhere - and since it isn't here - there must be a 2nd Cumorah because this one aint it....oh....and by the way....did I mention that THERE HAS TO BE A CUMORAH - because the church is true?"

So - again - I understand where you're coming from - and I used to believe the same way. Not I just have a hard time with it.

Thanks,

Hacedor

Hi Hacedor,

The leap you have made in assuming that since Joseph never mentioned another Cumorah, that there is no other Cumorah, is the same assumption that many many saints have made. Why should they even begin to consider the possibility?

Well once our knowledge of the history of the continent grew, and our critical thinking skills were enhanced, we discovered three things:

1) The archaeological evidence for a NY Cumorah is scant

2) The Book of Mormon itself clearly teaches a different Cumorah

3) Joseph Smith, or any other prophet, never tried to enforce any official position

Even without number 1, we could have reached our conclusions based solely on number 2.

To me, claiming a second Cumorah - based on the LGT is simply putting the cart before the horse - something akin to saying "Since the church is true, there has to be a Cumorah somewhere - and since it isn't here - there must be a 2nd Cumorah because this one aint it....oh....and by the way....did I mention that THERE HAS TO BE A CUMORAH - because the church is true?"

This is indeed the attitude with which I myself approach various issues. The Book of Mormon, and the church, are not on trial. It is with those guides that we are to interpret the rest of the world, including science. It is not the other way around.

For example, since we know the Book of Mormon is true, and that horses of some kind existed in Nephite days, it is not a matter of determining if the current scientific opinion is correct on the matter. It is a matter of determining how it is wrong.

Sargon

[Doc]

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

I cannot give you written statement from Elder Packer or Elder Eyring, but I can give you a statement by Elder Oaks.

...I took in the Book of Mormon at BYU. The class was titled, somewhat boldly, the "Archaeology of the Book of Mormon." In retrospect, I think it should have been labeled something like "An Anthropologist Looks at a Few Subjects of Interest to Readers of the Book of Mormon." Here I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time, I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship would have a promising position to argue.

In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise. You do not prevail on that proposition by proving that a particular Eskimo culture represents migrations from Asia. The opponents of the historicity of the Book of Mormon must prove that the people whose religious life it records did not live anywhere in the Americas.[The Historicity of the Book of Mormon by Dallin H. Oaks, Given at FARMS annual dinner on 10/29/93]

Doc

~

[cdowis]

>I guess that since Joseph Smith never mentioned a second Cumorah

Please give us every instance of JS saying the phrase "Hill Cumorah". You appear to be an expert on that very narrow field of research, so please share your findings with us.

Did he utter that phrase..... 50 times....20.....10......once? I think you will discover that you made a very silly statement.

[Hacedor Costoso]

>I guess that since Joseph Smith never mentioned a second Cumorah

Please give us every instance of JS saying the phrase "Hill Cumorah". You appear to be an expert on that very narrow field of research, so please share your findings with us.

Did he utter that phrase..... 50 times....20.....10......once? I think you will discover that you made a very silly statement.

cdowis - I told you before I wasn't going to play word games with you. The statement isn't silly - but your desire to send me on a scavenger hunt is.

I have no idea how many times JS said the exact phrase "Hill Cumorah" - and furthermore - it doesn't matter.

You still get my point and my point is still my point and it is still valid.

If he said it once - it was one more time than he mentioned the "other" Cumorah.

If he said "Cumorah" and left out the word "Hill" or vice versa - and he only said it once - he still said it one more time than the "other" one.

I focused this post on JS and the Hill Cumorah...same argument for Zelph, the Lamanite Placement Program, temple dedicatory prayers, my best buddy Wendell who was told personally by SWK that he and all people in his tribe were descended from Lehi (and I was there). Or how about my own father who was promised that as an area agent in So. California that he was helping to turn the Indians and Latinos "White and Delightsome" by SWK himself. And so on and so on....

It doesn't matter if YOU say he wasn't speaking as a prophet. In his mind - and in the minds of those listening to him - he was speaking as a prophet.

Discount it and spin it however you like it. If you want to split hairs about any one of these issues - feel free. I won't be joining you on your silly goose chase.

Hacedor

[selek]

cdowis - I told you before I wasn't going to play word games with you. The statement isn't silly - but your desire to send me on a scavenger hunt is.

I have no idea how many times JS said the exact phrase "Hill Cumorah" - and furthermore - it doesn't matter.

You still get my point and my point is still my point and it is still valid.

If he said it once - it was one more time than he mentioned the "other" Cumorah.

If he said "Cumorah" and left out the word "Hill" or vice versa - and he only said it once - he still said it one more time than the "other" one.

I focused this post on JS and the Hill Cumorah...same argument for Zelph, the Lamanite Placement Program, temple dedicatory prayers, my best buddy Wendell who was told personally by SWK that he and all people in his tribe were descended from Lehi (and I was there). Or how about my own father who was promised that as an area agent in So. California that he was helping to turn the Indians and Latinos "White and Delightsome" by SWK himself. And so on and so on....

It doesn't matter if YOU say he wasn't speaking as a prophet. In his mind - and in the minds of those listening to him - he was speaking as a prophet.

Discount it and spin it however you like it. If you want to split hairs about any one of these issues - feel free. I won't be joining you on your silly goose chase.

Hacedor

Hacedor- if you are unwilling to participate in the discussion, then perhaps silence is in order?

Frankly, you're the one desperate to retroactively read minds, split hairs and twist meanings to justify your own distortions, not cdowis.

If you don't want to play, take your ball and go home instead of standing on third base stomping your feet.

Last edit, I promise:

From the sound of things, you don't have anymore to offer than vitriol. Suggesting (rudely) that you "shut up" was a bit harsh, but you might consider walking away if you have nothing more to contribute.

[Pahoran]

Joseph Fielding Smith

10th President of the Church and Apostle for 60 years

Doctrines of Salvation 3: 239-240

Except he wasn't President of the Church at the time he wrote it.

Next:

Ezra Taft Benson

13th President of the Church and Apostle for 42 years

Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson pp. 587-588

Except he wasn't President of the Church at the time he wrote it.

Next:

Spencer W. Kimball

12th President of the Church and Apostle for 30 years

â??Of Royal Blood,â? Ensign, July 1971

Except he wasn't President of the Church at the time he wrote it.

Next:

So far, I've heard back from two senior anthropologists from two major U.S. universities, both of whom stated that they are unaware of any archaeological or other type of evidence supporting the BoM. I'm waiting to hear back from several more.

And none of those were Presidents of the Church, either.

Now Duane, it's time you stopped faking it. You know, and I know, and everyone else who has participated in this thread, knows perfectly well that you are not regurgitating these standard anti-Mormon prooftexts as part of any "search for truth," but merely engaged in a polemically based, agenda-driven, cherry-picking exercise.

Likewise, you know, and I know, and everyone else who has followed your postings, knows perfectly well that you are not writing to universities because you are naive enough to imagine that these places are repositories of Book of Mormon scholarship, but because you are looking for ammunition.

You know this is true. We know this is true.

So stop insulting our intelligence by trying to pretend otherwise.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hacedor Costoso]

Hacedor- if you are unwilling to participate in the discussion, then perhaps silence is in order?

Frankly, you're the one desperate to retroactively read minds, split hairs and twist meanings to justify your own distortions, not cdowis.

If you don't want to play, take your ball and go home instead of standing on third base stomping your feet.

Last edit, I promise:

From the sound of things, you don't have anymore to offer than vitriol. Suggesting (rudely) that you "shut up" was a bit harsh, but you might consider walking away if you have nothing more to contribute.

Selek - my comment to which you refer was addressed to cdowis and him/her alone. I didn't say I wasn't willing to participate in "a" discussion. I told cdowis that I didn't want to play with him/her. I addressed his word games in another post and was simply re-stating.

I am desperate for nothing and certainly haven't stomped my feet.

I don't know how you get vitriol from my posts:

vitriol

abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will [syn: vituperation]

I have not displayed such behavior at all. I don't even think you and cdowis have exhibited vitriol - although your words to me have certainly been stronger than anything I've directed to you.

Thanks,

Hacedor

[cdowis]

Selek - my comment to which you refer was addressed to cdowis and him/her alone.

You now have the honor of being on my ignore list. I assume that you will do the same for me.

[Hacedor Costoso]

You now have the honor of being on my ignore list. I assume that you will do the same for me.

Um....no...I assumed there would be other topics where cdowis and I would interact. I simply wasn't willing to continue going in circles with him/her regarding this topic.

Guessing that won't happen now that I am on his/her ignore list.

Oh well.

Hacedor