Facsimile 3, figures 2, 4, and 5

[dblagent007]

When I read the responses to these questions by FARMS and FAIR I personally did not find them compelling.

Many will continue to believe as long as the belief is still plausible and it has been confirmed by a spiritual experience. FARMS and FAIR provide responses that uphold the plausibility of many beliefs. If you want something more than plausiblity, then you will be disappointed.

[mateo]

Thanks Rommelator, I appreciate your remarks.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Many will continue to believe as long as the belief is still plausible and it has been confirmed by a spiritual experience. FARMS and FAIR provide responses that uphold the plausibility of many beliefs. If you want something more than plausiblity, then you will be disappointed.

You know a great deal of many things seem to be established by "plausibility". Big bang comes to mind abiogenisis also, and even how the moon was formed. Most of those have scant "facts" that scientist use to come up with a plausible story. You can't really test the theories yet in some cirlces they are established fact. I have no problems with plausibility

[krose]

You know a great deal of many things seem to be established by "plausibility". Big bang comes to mind abiogenisis also, and even how the moon was formed. Most of those have scant "facts" that scientist use to come up with a plausible story. You can't really test the theories yet in some cirlces they are established fact. I have no problems with plausibility

That's not quite the same thing. When approaching an unknown, such as how the Earth was formed, the best that a curious mind can do is to come up with a "best guess," or the scenario with the highest degree of likelihood, then try to come up with ways to test it. Of course the hypothesis must first be plausible to meet the higher standard of being the most likely explanation. But simple plausibility is not usually enough.

The task of an apologist, on the other hand, is not to come up with the most likely explanation for an event, but to provide cover for continued belief. They take an existing belief that has been challenged and come up with scenarios for how the event could possibly have happened in keeping with established belief. Usually any kind of explanation is enough, as long as it's remotely plausible. Thus we get explanations like Noah taking tiny baby dinosaurs (and other animals) on the Ark, in an effort to explain how they would all fit (and not eat each other).

[Nofear]

The task of an apologist, on the other hand, is not to come up with the most likely explanation for an event, but to provide cover for continued belief. They take an existing belief that has been challenged and come up with scenarios for how the event could possibly have happened in keeping with established belief. Usually any kind of explanation is enough, as long as it's remotely plausible.

I'm not sure that's a fair description of apologetics (LDS or otherwise). True, they are defenders of a faith but the job isn't so much to come up with a plausible argument to maintain a belief. Rather, the job is to show the assumptions, failings, errors, and/or deceptions of attacks on the apologist's community's beliefs (e.g. showing the silliness of a statement like "the Book of Mormon is untrue because we haven't found the Hill Cumorah").

It so happens that many LDS apologists are also scholars and advance their own ideas to their community which have no authoritative standing beyond the power of reasoning. Here various plausible arguments might vie for most likely (e.g. local hemispheric model vs. global hemispheric model).

Hope that clears up a few things for you.

[Nofear]

PS: I guess the above comment could be called an apologetic response to an attack on apologetics.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Many will continue to believe as long as the belief is still plausible and it has been confirmed by a spiritual experience.

I think this is true, though I would add here 'and as long as that belief is supported by the reality of practical experience.'

[Expose]

I'd be interested to know what those advocating the 2 cumorahs theory have to say about this letter

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'd be interested to know what those advocating the 2 cumorahs theory have to say about this letter

I don't atrribute it to anything. I have heard no were were presidant Hinckley, in any offical capacity, made that claim. As far as I am concearned since it was written by, whom again, that this is just rumor mill.

If it was church doctine that HC was in New York they would come out in GC an say it. Until they do you have nothing.

[Olavarria]

I'd be interested to know what those advocating the 2 cumorahs theory have to say about this letter

Correspondence from Michael Watson, Office of the First Presidency, 23 April 1993. Cited with commentary in William J. Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (1993): 161â??197.

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.

[Mortal Man]

If it was church doctine that HC was in New York they would come out in GC an say it. Until they do you have nothing.

"The passages which I have quoted from the Book of Mormon and the more extended discussion of this subject by Elder B. H. Roberts which was published in The Deseret News of March 3, 1928, definitely establish the following facts: That the Hill Cumorah, and the Hill Ramah are identical; that it was around this hill that the armies of both the Jaredites and Nephites, fought their great last battles; that it was in this hill that Mormon deposited all of the sacred records which had been entrusted to his care by Ammaron, except the abridgment which he had made from the plates of Nephi, which were delivered into the hands of his' son, Moroni. We know positively that it was in this hill that Moroni deposited the abridgment made by his father, and his own abridgment of the record of the Jaredites, and that it was from this hill that Joseph Smith obtained possession of them. " (President Anthony W. Ivins, General Conference Report, April 1928-Morning Session)

"I do not believe that there were two Hill Cumorahs, one in Central America and the other in New York, for the convenience of the Prophet Joseph Smith, so that the poor boy would not have to walk clear to Central America to get the gold plates."

"I do not believe we can be good Latter-day Saints and question the integrity of Joseph Smith." (Mark E. Peterson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, 123rd Annual Conference of the Church, April 4-6, 1953, General Conference Report; pp. 83-84; also The Improvement Era, June1953, pg. 423)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

"The passages which I have quoted from the Book of Mormon and the more extended discussion of this subject by Elder B. H. Roberts which was published in The Deseret News of March 3, 1928, definitely establish the following facts: That the Hill Cumorah, and the Hill Ramah are identical; that it was around this hill that the armies of both the Jaredites and Nephites, fought their great last battles; that it was in this hill that Mormon deposited all of the sacred records which had been entrusted to his care by Ammaron, except the abridgment which he had made from the plates of Nephi, which were delivered into the hands of his' son, Moroni. We know positively that it was in this hill that Moroni deposited the abridgment made by his father, and his own abridgment of the record of the Jaredites, and that it was from this hill that Joseph Smith obtained possession of them. " (President Anthony W. Ivins, General Conference Report, April 1928-Morning Session)

"I do not believe that there were two Hill Cumorahs, one in Central America and the other in New York, for the convenience of the Prophet Joseph Smith, so that the poor boy would not have to walk clear to Central America to get the gold plates."

"I do not believe we can be good Latter-day Saints and question the integrity of Joseph Smith." (Mark E. Peterson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, 123rd Annual Conference of the Church, April 4-6, 1953, General Conference Report; pp. 83-84; also The Improvement Era, June1953, pg. 423)

Why is there not a definitave statement made, why only statements of belief? That is my question for you.

If the New York HC and the BoM HC the same why does some one not come out and say, that God revealed to us that teh New York HC and the New York HC are the same.

I appreciate you effort here, but this comes across as more of an opinion due to the statement of belief.

"for the convenience of the Prophet Joseph Smith, so that the poor boy would not have to walk clear to Central America to get the gold plates." This is a curious statement, don't you think?

[Mortal Man]

Why is there not a definitave statement made, why only statements of belief? That is my question for you.

You asked for GC statements, so that's what I gave you. There are boatloads of more authoritative statements made elsewhere by numerous church authorities but you can Google them as well as I can.

If the New York HC and the BoM HC the same why does some one not come out and say, that God revealed to us that teh New York HC and the New York HC are the same.

The church taught that they were the same nearly up until John Sorenson's book came out.

I appreciate you effort here, but this comes across as more of an opinion due to the statement of belief.

Which carries more weight, an apostle speaking in general conference or a BYU professor offering up a theory?

"for the convenience of the Prophet Joseph Smith, so that the poor boy would not have to walk clear to Central America to get the gold plates." This is a curious statement, don't you think?

I think it shows how ingrained the believe was until recently. If B. H. Roberts couldn't swallow a limited geographic setting, you can rest assured that virtually no one prior to his generation could either. Roberts was one sharp cookie. He recognized the problems a LGT solves but instantly realized that the cure was worse than the disease.

[Pahoran]

I'd be interested to know what those advocating the 2 cumorahs theory have to say about this letter

That it has been superseded.

That if it has ever, since the advent of the Internet, been offered in good faith as genuine evidence of the Church's position on any subject, it has quite escaped my notice.

And that its production by you here is polemical prooftexting, pure and simple.

Regards,

Pahoran

[dblagent007]

"The passages which I have quoted from the Book of Mormon and the more extended discussion of this subject by Elder B. H. Roberts which was published in The Deseret News of March 3, 1928, definitely establish the following facts: That the Hill Cumorah, and the Hill Ramah are identical; that it was around this hill that the armies of both the Jaredites and Nephites, fought their great last battles; that it was in this hill that Mormon deposited all of the sacred records which had been entrusted to his care by Ammaron, except the abridgment which he had made from the plates of Nephi, which were delivered into the hands of his' son, Moroni. We know positively that it was in this hill that Moroni deposited the abridgment made by his father, and his own abridgment of the record of the Jaredites, and that it was from this hill that Joseph Smith obtained possession of them. " (President Anthony W. Ivins, General Conference Report, April 1928-Morning Session)

"I do not believe that there were two Hill Cumorahs, one in Central America and the other in New York, for the convenience of the Prophet Joseph Smith, so that the poor boy would not have to walk clear to Central America to get the gold plates."

"I do not believe we can be good Latter-day Saints and question the integrity of Joseph Smith." (Mark E. Peterson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, 123rd Annual Conference of the Church, April 4-6, 1953, General Conference Report; pp. 83-84; also The Improvement Era, June1953, pg. 423)

That's just fallible opinion, just like 90%+ of General Conference today. Real revelation is rare and infrequent these days.

[Expose]

That it has been superseded.

That if it has ever, since the advent of the Internet, been offered in good faith as genuine evidence of the Church's position on any subject, it has quite escaped my notice.

And that its production by you here is polemical prooftexting, pure and simple.

Regards,

Pahoran

That's just fallible opinion, just like 90%+ of General Conference today. Real revelation is rare and infrequent these days.

So how are we supposed to know what is "real revelation?"

[ttribe]

So how are we supposed to know what is "real revelation?"

FYI - dblagent was being sarcastic...I believe he's with you on this one.

[dblagent007]

So how are we supposed to know what is "real revelation?"

By personal revelation. Yeah, I know, it's not all that satisfying of an answer.

Anyway, the key is that you must not publicly contradict the fallible opinions expressed in General Conference until said speaker is at least dead and, preferably, a long time after said speaker is dead.

[Expose]

By personal revelation. Yeah, I know, it's not all that satisfying of an answer.

Anyway, the key is that you must not publicly contradict the fallible opinions expressed in General Conference until said speaker is at least dead and, preferably, a long time after said speaker is dead.

But in this, and perhaps other instances, the "personal" revelation you're talking about is in direct conflict with the statements of modern prophets, apostles, and general authorities. I reject that. I think if anyone is entitled to receive answers to these questions, it would be the leaders of the church. When has the church ever taught that you could receive personal revelation that is in conflict with the church's teachings? If you could receive such a revelation then what is the purpose of having GAs?

If I can receive a "personal revelation" telling me one thing, and obviously other members in good standing (ie, GAs) have received an opposite revelation, then what does that tell us about this method of receiving truth?

[Anijen]

You asked for GC statements, so that's what I gave you. There are boatloads of more authoritative statements made elsewhere by numerous church authorities but you can Google them as well as I can.

The church taught that they were the same nearly up until John Sorenson's book came out.

Which carries more weight, an apostle speaking in general conference or a BYU professor offering up a theory?

I think it shows how ingrained the believe was until recently. If B. H. Roberts couldn't swallow a limited geographic setting, you can rest assured that virtually no one prior to his generation could either. Roberts was one sharp cookie. He recognized the problems a LGT solves but instantly realized that the cure was worse than the disease.

MM,

You are correct in your BH Robert quotes. Though BH Roberts was an early proponent of the NY hill Cumorah and other Book of Mormon sites. However in 1951 BH Roberts later changed his mind on that theory and abandoned the geography that he had previously published and then went with the BoM lands located in Mexico and Guatemala.

We need to remember if two church leaders make conflicting statements concerning nondoctrinal matters, it is not a negative reflection on the Church. It is simply a reflection of the open spirit of inquiry and search for knowledge which was preached by Joseph Smith. We would probably benefit by knowing that tradition is a unreliable source of information of the geography of the Book of Mormon.

Some of the interesting things to me are the Hopewell mound builders, prior to 1000 AD they were the most advanced culture in the US, they were a subject of curiosity from the time of the colonist to the time of Joseph Smith, they even figured into debatable church history during Zions camp. Though JS took an interest in them, he never equated them with the Book of Mormon cities or events, as he later would do with ruins in Mesoamerica.

sincerely

Anijen

[wenglund]

The task of an apologist, on the other hand, is not to come up with the most likely explanation for an event, but to provide cover for continued belief.

Really? I must have missed the edict from Apologist-Central informing me that this is my task (it must have happened during the brief moment when I took off my tinfoil hat during the pledge of allegence). I am in major trouble, then, because I thought my self-appointed task was to give reasonable and rational cause for retaining faith.

It is a good thing, though, that I come to this board often so I can learn what I supposedly think and what it is I am supposedly doing. Otherwise, I wouldn't know or recognize myself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You asked for GC statements, so that's what I gave you. There are boatloads of more authoritative statements made elsewhere by numerous church authorities but you can Google them as well as I can.

The church taught that they were the same nearly up until John Sorenson's book came out.

Which carries more weight, an apostle speaking in general conference or a BYU professor offering up a theory?

I think it shows how ingrained the believe was until recently. If B. H. Roberts couldn't swallow a limited geographic setting, you can rest assured that virtually no one prior to his generation could either. Roberts was one sharp cookie. He recognized the problems a LGT solves but instantly realized that the cure was worse than the disease.

You are quite right, and I am glad you offered them up. As others pointed out it appears the Roberts changed his mind. Why if this was a doctrinal pronouncement did he change his mind?

I was just merely stating that with the quotes from GC you came up with the did not appear to be doctrinal pronouncments? Do you agree? Or am I off my rocker. I realise I was pretty non specific in my request I should clarify. Are there any prnouncements from a GC talk taht are difinitive? You know something like, " We know through revelation that the NY HC is the same one talked about in the BoM". That would carry alot more weight than someone even the prophet offering up their belief. Now belief in a non doctrinal issue such as the NY HC and one like Jesus is the Christ are 2 different things. Sorry if I am not making sense.

[dblagent007]

But in this, and perhaps other instances, the "personal" revelation you're talking about is in direct conflict with the statements of modern prophets, apostles, and general authorities. I reject that. I think if anyone is entitled to receive answers to these questions, it would be the leaders of the church. When has the church ever taught that you could receive personal revelation that is in conflict with the church's teachings? If you could receive such a revelation then what is the purpose of having GAs?

It's the only way for the system to work. The GAs have been wrong, repeatedly. Either they are fallible prophets or they are not prophets at all. Since Mormons do not accept the latter, the only option is the former.

Here is Michael Ash's explanation of how to know when a prophet is speaking as a prophet.

http://www.mormontim...t_blog/?id=9977

http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/guest_blog/?id=10256

http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/guest_blog/?id=10376

(By the way, I would love to see the day when an article like Ash's shows up in the Ensign)

If I can receive a "personal revelation" telling me one thing, and obviously other members in good standing (ie, GAs) have received an opposite revelation, then what does that tell us about this method of receiving truth?

No comment.

[Expose]

You are quite right, and I am glad you offered them up. As others pointed out it appears the Roberts changed his mind. Why if this was a doctrinal pronouncement did he change his mind?

I was just merely stating that with the quotes from GC you came up with the did not appear to be doctrinal pronouncments? Do you agree? Or am I off my rocker. I realise I was pretty non specific in my request I should clarify. Are there any prnouncements from a GC talk taht are difinitive? You know something like, " We know through revelation that the NY HC is the same one talked about in the BoM". That would carry alot more weight than someone even the prophet offering up their belief. Now belief in a non doctrinal issue such as the NY HC and one like Jesus is the Christ are 2 different things. Sorry if I am not making sense.

So first a letter from the office of the first presidency directly on point written to a bishop isn't good enough, so you ask for something stated in general conference. When that is given then it doesn't "appear to be doctrinal pronouncements" and you imply that the brethren have to state "we know through revelation..." before anything they say can be anything but their own personal belief. Respectfully, I reject that, I think you're hiding the ball, and making a moving target for what is official, reliable church source. If GAs general conference talks are just their personal opinion and can't be relied on, why do we always rehash them in church? Why do we give talks on those talks? I think the fact that they are GENERAL AUTHORITIES means that their authority is applied generally to everything said in the conference of the church. Unless, of course, they tell us something is their opinion, etc.

[mfbukowski]

So first a letter from the office of the first presidency directly on point written to a bishop isn't good enough, so you ask for something stated in general conference.

Are you serious?

A letter which is virtually a form letter written by a SECRETARY and signed by THAT SECRETARY about what church believes is now how we establish doctrine?? You have to dig this deep for supposed "evidence"?

Individual letters from secretaries never have been and never will be how we establish doctrine, and what is so disingenouous is that you know this fully well.

This is stuff you have plucked from the air. Do you know how many letters I have seen like this one? Members show them to me all the time, and I have one young man in my ward who is a little unstable and has a whole drawer full of them. (In fact, they have now a new policy where requests like this are sent to the bishop of the ward, returned without answering because they get so many letters) They are like baseball cards to him, all from "The Office Of.... (Insert name here)

These are basically form letters, with standard responses; this is NOT some kind of "doctrinal statement". You are just repeating and repeating and are wasting memory and bandwidth on the forum.

They are going back and deleting threads like this which repeat and repeat and repeat. It is a waste of time.