Grant Palmer Supporters Unite!

[A Random Catholic]

Why cater to him?

Ben

It seems to me you would be catering to yourselves. If there is no "gulf" between the Prophets and the apologists (and there better not be, unless "Prophet" has been radically re-defined), then one should be able to argue that position persuasively. Why allow it to appear as if perhaps you can't to those who weren't aware of the controversey?

Try for a moment to imagine how the "one or two Cumorah's" thing looks to an outsider like myself. It's not a doctrinal question, of course, but still: for those of us without a Testimony, the most plausible construction of the issue is that everybody from Joseph Smith on down thought that there was one, except for contemporary apologists. Again, a serious question: armed only with the data that critics provide with respect to Cumorah and your responses here, could you blame me for concluding that apologists do a bang-up job of defending a position that they alone hold? Best to respond once and indulge Dr. Shades (and us) with a link to it whenever he posts the dichotomy, in my opinion.

Thanks,

Random

[Bill Hamblin]

Ben is right as usual. But Shades' monomania, based on creation of false dichotomies, is just too boring to deal with. Life is short. But more decisvie, no answer given to Shades will be satisfactory, ever.

[Bill Hamblin]

Try for a moment to imagine how the "one or two Cumorah's" thing looks to an outsider like myself.

These issues have received detailed attention in numerous publications.

Think of the question of the Tomb of Christ and the resurrection. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher has been the traditional location since the early fourth century. Then in the late 19th century, Protestants found the Garden Tomb. Does this mean the Protestants reject the resurrection because the reject the CHS? A debate about where Christ was buried is a debate between believers. One can accept the resurrection of Christ whether one believes in the CHS, GT, or believes that neither is true tomb of Christ.

All of this, however, is in distinction to a non-believer, who believes the CHS is the real tomb, but rejects the resurrection.

The fact that early Mormons were wrong about their identification of the hill in New York with the Cumorah of the BOM (if they were) is no more a matter for schism than the debate about which is the real tomb of Christ. We agree on the historicity of the BOM, which is the real issue.

If the BOM is true, isn't that cosmically more important than whether there is confusion about the location of the Hill Cumorah.

I believe someone called that straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

[TrespassersW]

ever-widening gulf between the Mormonism of the prophets and the Mormonism of the apologists

Well, now I'm confused. I thought the apologists were simply the paid thugs of the church -- hired specifically to say whatever the First Presidency tells them to say. If there truly is an ever-widening gulf, then President Hinckley should immediately fire these insubordinates and replace them with more subserviant lap-dogs. This kind of biting-the-hand-that-feeds-you simply can't be tolerated in our monolithic little community.

And what's up with that Hinckley fellow? Saying things like:

As a Church, we encourage gospel scholarship and the search to understand all truth. Fundamental to our theology is belief in individual freedom of inquiry, thought, and expression. Constructive discussion is a privilege of every Latter-day Saint.

(Gordon B. Hinckley,

[Bill Hamblin]

Well, now I'm confused. I thought the apologists were simply the paid thugs of the church

I know. It's so depressing. Apologists are amoral mercenary hacks paid to defend the Church, but they are so bad at it that the only way they can do it is to deny the prophets. You'd think the Church could find some decent spinmeisters. If the Republicans and Democrats can, anybody should be able to!

[Guest Just Curious]

If the BOM is true, isn't that cosmically more important than whether there is confusion about the location of the Hill Cumorah.

You seem to want to overlook a fact that Joseph himself said that the Hill in NY was THE hill cumorah. And if the BoM is indeed true then isn't it cosmically more important that it be factually correct about where the plates were deposited. Had Joseph not emphatically stated the hill in NY was THE hill I don't think many people would have a problem but since he did it is cause for inquiry. Now if there are other Hill Cumorah's...then so be it. As for your comparison of this fact with the finding of various tombs of Jesus burial. That is about as far off base as you can be. Which Christian denominations based their existence on finding the true one tomb? Certainly the true Hill Cumorah has significant implications on the factual historocity of the BoM.

[Bill Hamblin]

You seem to want to overlook a fact that Joseph himself said that the Hill in NY was THE hill cumorah.

He did?

Evidence please?

[Guest Just Curious]

He did?

Evidence please?

Nah...your a smart guy I know you will be able to find it yourself. No doubt you have seen it before...

[Benjamin McGuire]

Heh heh - I see how it works. I'm right, and you're not. So please, you are a smart guy, go find the evidence that proves my case.

Ben

[Beowulf]

As far as I know, JS never said any such thing.

Admittedly, some of his followers did. Off the top of my head, I can remember Oliver Cowdery, for one, saying so.

Joseph Smith himself actually said very little about it. That he thought the Lamanites lived throughout North America is apparent from reading the D&C. (And as an apologist who must be far removed from the prophets , so do I.) But he did not appear to be all that certain as to WHERE in the Americas it occurred.

I do know, however, that he commented favorably in the Times and Seasons about a travel book on Mesoamerica that appeared about that time, as being relevant to the BofM.

Beowulf

[Scott Lloyd]

Which Christian denominations based their existence on finding the true one tomb?

Which churches base their existence on a specific identification for the Hill Cumorah? Not The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, surely.

[poulsenll]

There is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever called the hill in NY by the name Hill Cumorah. He referenced it as a small hill near his home. See the Pof GP. Others called it that because of the mistaken belief that the Book of Mormon indicated that Moroni buried the plates in the same hill where the last battle was fought. In fact, Moroni says nothing about where he buried the plates. Obviously, he buried them in the NY hill because that is where Joseph Smith found them. Or they were moved there by the ressurected Moroni so that they would be near where Joseph lived. Moroni was given responsibilty for the plates by his father who made the original abridgement of the records stored in the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah. Moroni was also charged with the responsibilty of informing Joseph Smith where to find the plates, when to let Joseph Smith retrieve the plates and finally of retrieving back the plates and returning them to a secure storage place. This secure storage was not the Hill Cumorah in NY as attested by the many attempts to find them in that locality. That effort was so intense that he hill was completely stripped of trees and bushes. It is only since aquisition by the LDS Church that the original type of vegetation has been allowed to regrow.

[Beowulf]

Mormon tells us that he buried the records in the Hill Cumorah, where the last great battle took place. Moroni kept them, and added a few things at the end. He DOES NOT tell us where he eventually buried them.

In other words, the BofM itself offers the evidence that what we think of as Hill Cumorah may be more than one place. It is not apologists fighting against prophets, it is scholars reading the text and extracting information from it.

Beowulf

[Bill Hamblin]

Nah...your a smart guy I know you will be able to find it yourself. No doubt you have seen it before...

In other words, you have no evidence.

Surely, JustCurious, you have some burden of proof in this matter.

On second thought, you've never assumed any burden of proof on any other assertion you have made; why should this topic be any different?

[Daniel Peterson]

Perhaps you could address Dr. Shades issues in a manner that would put them to rest once and for all, unbiased of course...then you would set the prisoner free...

I've already addressed them. On this thread and several times before. It doesn't matter. It doesn't help. The prison is self-constructed.

[Bill Hamblin]

I've already addressed them. On this thread and several times before. It doesn't matter. It doesn't help. The prison is self-constructed.

My Dear Professor Peterson,

There is no prison. Merely imaginary fetters.

Sincerely,

Professor Hamblin

[Daniel Peterson]

There is no prison.  Merely imaginary fetters. 

Esteemed Professor Hamblin:

The closing chapter of the last book in C. S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia has a scene where the dwarves, who have become cynical and hardened, imagine themselves horribly threatened by non-existent dangers, and take refuge within a kind of fortress. It's all hallucination. Safety and prosperity and happiness await them outside, but they refuse help. "They are so afraid of being taken in," explains Aslan, "that they cannot be taken out."

Cordially,

Professor Peterson

[Calm]

If it's so obviously a stupid question that's been sufficiently answered, why not just save a link to the response that puts it to bed and paste it as a reply when Shades posts the dichotomy? Serious question, btw... 

In my case, it's disbelief that he hasn't dropped the whole thing. When this first showed up, if I had a clue that I and others would have wasted a multitude of hours on it, I likely would have collected the responses. Now it's to the point of caring enough to go back and find them. There is so much more worthwhile stuff out there. I also find it very hard to believe that Shades' position is credible to anyone who is familiar with the prophets, FARMS, other apologists, and the LDS culture at all

[Scott Lloyd]

Nah...your a smart guy I know you will be able to find it yourself. No doubt you have seen it before...

In other words, you have no evidence.

Surely, JustCurious, you have some burden of proof in this matter.

On second thought, you've never assumed any burden of proof on any other assertion you have made; why should this topic be any different?

Perhaps he believes, as does somone with whom I contended the other day on another message board, that burden of proof doesn't apply to him because he's not in a courtroom.

[bammer]

My Dear Professor Peterson,

There is no prison. Merely imaginary fetters.

Sincerely,

Professor Hamblin

Again, LDS experts reveal the humility overflowing from their broken hearts.

[bammer]

I just re-read through most of this thread. Summation:

Grant Palmer has written an excellent book full of good information. He is a kind and gentle man whose work and intentions can be trusted.

[edit] [edit] and [edit]

Trust the Bible and the spirit of truth. Make Jesus your focus . . . like Grant Palmer decided to do after seeing the light.

Read Grant Palmer's book, seekers of truth. It is really the definitive "Insiders View" That is why there are almost 3000 views on this topic - because it is scaring the _____ out of "professing" defenders of the faith.

In Jesus Always,

BAMMER

[Bill Hamblin]

Again, LDS experts reveal the humility overflowing from their broken hearts.

My Dear Professor Peterson,

Professor Bammer does not seem to realize that our occasional personal side-correspondence here on the FAIR Board is a literary jest designed to allow us to make ironic comments about some of the more nonsensical antics of anti-Mormons, in a rather pale imitation of Montesquieu

[Shuriken]

Arguing over how good a book is, is like arguing over the best shoe size.

[noel00]

Dan, Bill and Louise, the three mouthcateers, one for all and all for one

[Daniel Peterson]

My Dear Professor Peterson,

There is no prison. Merely imaginary fetters.

Sincerely,

Professor Hamblin

Again, LDS experts reveal the humility overflowing from their broken hearts.

Dear Professor Dr. Hamblin, Ph.D.:

Bammer doesn't get the joke.

Cordially,

Professor Dr. Peterson, Ph.D.