Historicity Of The Bom

[Jesterss]

No, they're not sending out mixed signals. When a prophet or apostle speaks based on his own understanding, he says so. But when he speaks as the Lord's mouthpiece, we'll know it.

Fair enough.

[wenglund]

So are the priesthood holders and leaders and prophets ordained by God or not? When they speak of churchly matters, are they speaking falsely? When one speaks to a child in his guidance and counseling, is he speaking out of errancy just as some have out of their misunderstandings?

Where then can the line be drawn that these people are speaking presumptuously or accurately? Are we not to judge a prophet by his accuracy?

We have had no problem deciding for ourselves where we draw the line, and even though we don't answer to you, we have already paid you the courtesy of informing you where those lines are drawn. That should suffice. Feel at liberty to off-load trying to speak for us--since we are in a far better position than you to do so, and focus instead on speaking for yourself. Deal?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jesterss]

We have had no problem deciding for ourselves where we draw the line, and even though we don't answer to you, we have already paid you the courtesy of informing you where those lines are drawn. That should suffice. Feel at liberty to off-load trying to speak for us--since we are in a far better position than you to do so, and focus instead on speaking for yourself. Deal?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Lines were drawn long before we existed. I would never speak for you. You don't represent my belief. So of course that's a deal

[wenglund]

Lines were drawn long before we existed. I would never speak for you. You don't represent my belief. So of course that's a deal

Great! This then should put to rest your mistaken speculation about certain aged statements by Church members and leaders as supposedly "spoken on behalf of the Church," thus putting the discussion back to where Brant left it: "The church, as an official body, has been adamant that it has no position....The evidence clearly shows that as an institution, the church hasn't stated an opinion one way or the other--ergo, it cannot change positions on something about which it has taken no position."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Craig Paxton]

What I am trying to do is get the conversation on a productive tract. If the question is whether or not the church has changed its position, that is open to empirical evidence. The evidence clearly shows that as an institution, the church hasn't stated an opinion one way or the other--ergo, it cannot change positions on something about which it has taken no position.

If the question isn't the church, it is also historically demonstrable that there has been no single position, and that different people have held different positions. Ignoring history in a discussion that is supposed to be discussing history seems a little strange to me.

We're debating semantics..."The Church" as you see it is some nebulous entity devoid of responsibility for the action or musings of its leaders. “The Church” can’t act for itself nor can it set its teachings, policies, doctrines or scripture by itself…people do that…more specifically…its leaders do that.

While I understand why you find it necessary to separate “The Church” from those who lead “The Church” HISTORICALLY, it has always been “The People” who ARE “The Church” and historically, it has always been LDS General Authorities, who speak for “The Church”. I just do not understand why this is even a point of debate for you. I’m back on the crazy-town trolley.

NOW if what you are actually saying is that “The Church” has never had an official policy on the location of the Book of Mormon…that’s an entirely different point than the one you are attempting to argue. One I would also take issue with however BECAUSE there have been many official letters from the First Presidency, whom I’m assuming you would agree speak for “The Church”, which state in no ambiguity…that the Hill Cumorah near Palmyra, NY is THE Hill referred to in the Book of Mormon…thus making it THE Hill of the supposed last Nephite/Lamanite battle. But I’m guessing that even official First Presidency pronouncements are neither actually official nor binding to “The Church” in your worldview. Where can I get off this trolley…

Interesting sidenote: When a church leader screws up....in a legal sense...it is "The Church" that pays...so certainly the world sees no distinction between Church leaders and "The Church"...they are one and the same...otherwise...The Church would have NO liability exposure when one of its leaders screw up.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Jesterss]

Great! This then should put to rest your mistaken speculation about certain aged statements by Church members and leaders as supposedly "spoken on behalf of the Church," thus putting the discussion back to where Brant left it: "The church, as an official body, has been adamant that it has no position....The evidence clearly shows that as an institution, the church hasn't stated an opinion one way or the other--ergo, it cannot change positions on something about which it has taken no position."

No, because speculation is pure speculation. It's not a stance of telling you what you believe, but rather what I understand you believe in a discussion with those able to articulate their appropriate response to my speculations. It's all belief based and ones own opinions. That's what discussions are all about. I'm not our writing papers and claiming what you believe and saying "Wade told me his was his belief and they definitely believe it! It's church doctrine!"...

So next time, don't tell me my speculations are intruding on your beliefs. Instead, just ignore the "discussion" board if that's what you believe.

Rob Bowman writes articles you may disagree with. I write discussions back and forth here.

[Brant Gardner]

We're debating semantics..

This is the third time you have said exactly the same thing, and none of them has engaged the history of Book of Mormon geography.

One I would also take issue with however BECAUSE there have been many official letters from the First Presidency, whom I’m assuming you would agree speak for “The Church”, which state in no ambiguity…that the Hill Cumorah near Palmyra, NY is THE Hill referred to in the Book of Mormon…thus making it THE Hill of the supposed last Nephite/Lamanite battle.

I agree that this one is new to you, but a very old and tired topic. Have you read anything before posting?

You might want to look at the history of how that hill became known as Cumorah. If you will look at the statements to which you refer, I'm pretty sure they will depend upon the acceptance of the identification, not a declaration of the identification. Why is that a difference that is important? Since you dislike semantics, I'll try to explain the historical significance. The hill became known as Cumorah in popular (among the believers) vocabulary. It was based on the mistaken idea that because the plates were taken from that hill, that it was the very Cumorah in which the Book of Mormon plates were buried. Unfortunately, that identification depended upon a misreading of the scripture, which indicated that plates were buried in Cumorah - all except those that were later delivered to Joseph.

So, we have a hill that wasn't Cumorah, was then named by popular acclaim, based on a quick rather than careful reading of the Book of Mormon, and then became a standard of reference. If the church accepts that the NY hill isn't the Book of Mormon hill (which it hasn't done, just as it hasn't declared it is), then there is a change in the popular associations - in this case back to a beginning.

However, it still is part of the history of people looking at the evidence, and not the church proclaiming a geography. When the idea that there were two Cumorahs was presented to a body that included some General Authorities, none of them decided that this required a change in any church position.

As I have said several times, your position is not based on the actual history of the events.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Brant Gardner

[SeattleGrunge]

Jesterss:

No. They alone are responsible for their statements. We have a long established method of determining what is our actual doctrine and random statements even by several General Authorities doesn't make it doctrine.

IE, Bruce R. McConkies "Mormon Doctrine" is more rightly to be called McConkie's Doctrine.

That statement would have more credibility if BRM wouldn't have published it against the First Presidency's request.

[wenglund]

So next time, don't tell me my speculations are intruding on your beliefs. Instead, just ignore the "discussion" board if that's what you believe.

This is funny. In the process of rationalizing that you, as a non-LDS, really aren't telling me, as an LDS, who can or can't speak for my LDS faith (while doing just that), you go even one step further to tell me what I can't say and what I am to do. LOL

You are right about one thing: it is pointless to try and engage people like you who are unwittingly intent on controlling both sides of the conversation. It is enough for me to say that your speculations or opinions about who in my Church can or cannot speak for my Church, is meaningless and devoid of credibility with me, and then let you talk with yourself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

Ok I admit it...you almost had me convinced I was the one who has been living in some Bizarre-O-World, Alternative Universe...but then I ran across this gem of an Ensign article by none other than apostle in waiting Jeffery R Holland....and I almost feel vindicated. Apology anyone?

http://lds.org/ensig...d-land?lang=eng

Interesting article.

I have read it.

But I fail, somehow, to find the sentence, paragraph or passage in which Brother Holland asserts that the Nephites and Lamanites had exclusive occupancy of the entire continent of North and South America. Would you care to point it out to me?

This is a classic example of the kind of tripe that was being taught me as a young man...full of errors, misunderstands and just plain ignorant of reality.

While this paragraph is a classic example of the kind of tripe we have to put up with every time you post: arrogant, opinionated, judgemental, and "just plain ignorant of reality."

Care to dial it back just a little bit?

I doubt that there is anything you understand so well that Elder Holland doesn't get.

Regards,

Pahoran

[jskains]

I would also contend that like the story of Jewish slaves wondering around for 40 years with no archeological evidence that supports it in a way to satisfy man-made science, the idea for the traditional view of the Book of Mormon is not completely sealed off.

I think it is human nature that everything must be packaged with a nice bow. But when discussing a "lost tribe", that complicates things.

[mfbukowski]

....The hill became known as Cumorah in popular (among the believers) vocabulary. It was based on the mistaken idea that because the plates were taken from that hill, that it was the very Cumorah in which the Book of Mormon plates were buried. Unfortunately, that identification depended upon a misreading of the scripture, which indicated that plates were buried in Cumorah - all except those that were later delivered to Joseph.

So, we have a hill that wasn't Cumorah, was then named by popular acclaim, based on a quick rather than careful reading of the Book of Mormon, and then became a standard of reference. If the church accepts that the NY hill isn't the Book of Mormon hill (which it hasn't done, just as it hasn't declared it is), then there is a change in the popular associations - in this case back to a beginning.

I must confess ignorance about the details of this line of reasoning- I am sure you have written extensively on it, but could you give me a quick reference to where I can see the argument summarized, but including more detail than you have mentioned here, including scriptural references?

I am somewhat familiar with the "two Cumorahs" idea, but would love to understand its basis more clearly.

[Calm]

If you type in "two cumorah theory" into google, it brings up the FAIR blog...

Or just go to the fair blog link here and go to Feb. 12, 2008. It has the argument in a nutshell.

The FAIR wiki also has a collection of statements on Cumorah, just do a search there.

John Clark has an article titled Archaeology and Cumorah Questions on the MI website you might check out.

Edited October 11, 2011 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

A prophet is only a prophet when what he proclaims in the name of the Lord is 100% accurate. I'm assuming this is kind of what you mean. The fact that at times they speak out on their own behalf. But then they are sending mixed signals right?

I don't think it is difficult to understand when they speak as individaul men (i.e. just like you and me) and when they speak as a prophet. We can be so strict in our understanding as to assume that if they speak as a prophet their statements will be added to the canon of scripture of the Church. Everything else is open for interpretation. Others are much more liberal in their view and feel that every word that comes out of their mouth is revelation. I personally am much closer to the first position. I try to understand what they are saying and I try to follow the influence of the Holy Spirit.

I feel that this is the same position that most people had during the times of the ancient prophets and apostles. Everyone understood them to be just men, called of God. When they spoke as a prophet they knew it. At other times, they were just ol Moses who put his robe on the same as they did.

[Robert F. Smith]

I would also contend that like the story of Jewish slaves wondering around for 40 years with no archeological evidence that supports it in a way to satisfy man-made science, the idea for the traditional view of the Book of Mormon is not completely sealed off.

I think it is human nature that everything must be packaged with a nice bow. But when discussing a "lost tribe", that complicates things.

Be careful. There may actually be evidence available, if you know where to look!! See my piece at http://www.scribd.com/doc/51104640/Moses-Our-Teacher-Moshe-Rabbenu .

[Robert F. Smith]

I must confess ignorance about the details of this line of reasoning- I am sure you have written extensively on it, but could you give me a quick reference to where I can see the argument summarized, but including more detail than you have mentioned here, including scriptural references?

I am somewhat familiar with the "two Cumorahs" idea, but would love to understand its basis more clearly.

As you seek out those available explanations, you might want to keep in mind that Moroni had about 20 years after the destruction of his people in which to trek to upstate New York and bury the plates where he could later lead young Joseph to find them. A number of shipwrecked castaways in the Gulf of Mexico made a similar trek on foot a few centuries ago, when the area was populated only by paleo-indians.

[Robert F. Smith]

Ok I admit it...you almost had me convinced I was the one who has been living in some Bizarre-O-World, Alternative Universe...but then I ran across this gem of an Ensign article by none other than apostle in waiting Jeffery R Holland....and I almost feel vindicated. Apology anyone?

http://lds.org/ensig...d-land?lang=eng

This is a classic example of the kind of tripe that was being taught me as a young man...full of errors, misunderstands and just plain ignorant of reality.

I think this pretty much confirms what I was saying...during the pre-80's period, the hemispheric model was commonly taught. I have now presented 2 Ensign articles...one by Spencer W. Kimball and now a second by current GA, Jeffery R Holland, that confirm the prevailing view of the church back then...I have yet to see even 1 Ensign article written by a GA, that supports a limited geography prior to the 1980...let alone any recent Ensign articles...it just doesn't exist...or if it does I can't find it on lds.org.

Holland's article gives some insight into the prevailing views taught in church during this particular time...and YES the church has changed its position and moved away from these very ignorant unsupportable views...I would also hope that Holland has even changed his views (but I can't confirm that). Reality has forced the hand of the church to change its view or look even more out of touch with reality than it usually does. Can you even imagine Holland delivering this talk today? Well I could only hope...

Jeffrey Holland was not a General Authority of the LDS Church when writing that Ensign article. Lots of Church members have written articles for Church magazines over the years, and I am unaware of any responsible claim that they represent official policy. The views expressed were not the "prevailing views taught in church during this particular time," and represented only the opinion of a man with an academic position.

Arguments from authority are notoriously difficult to pin down when the authorities themselves hold a variety of positions. It is far better to argue from evidence in a logical and scientific manner. You shouldn't be fearful of that more sound approach.

[Storm Rider]

Jeffrey Holland was not a General Authority of the LDS Church when writing that Ensign article. Lots of Church members have written articles for Church magazines over the years, and I am unaware of any responsible claim that they represent official policy. The views expressed were not the "prevailing views taught in church during this particular time," and represented only the opinion of a man with an academic position.

Arguments from authority are notoriously difficult to pin down when the authorities themselves hold a variety of positions. It is far better to argue from evidence in a logical and scientific manner. You shouldn't be fearful of that more sound approach.

Robert, I am not sure that is an accurate statement. Throughout the Church's history there have been periods where a specific position was the prevailing position; though these positions were never doctrine. I think it is safe to say that the Adam-God theory was such a position; then that all the American Indians were the descendants of the Lamanites, the curse of Cain, etc. None of these positions were the doctrines of the Church, but they became the prevailing thoughts of their day.

Having stated this I fully agree with your last statement, "Arguments from authority are notoriously difficult to pin down when the authorities themselves hold a variety of positions". I don't think there has ever been a time in the Church where all leaders stated the same thing on undoctrinal areas. There has always been a contrary or opposing view. They are never open about it, but the contrary positions existed.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, I am not sure that is an accurate statement. Throughout the Church's history there have been periods where a specific position was the prevailing position; though these positions were never doctrine. I think it is safe to say that the Adam-God theory was such a position; then that all the American Indians were the descendants of the Lamanites, the curse of Cain, etc. None of these positions were the doctrines of the Church, but they became the prevailing thoughts of their day.

My comments were based the claim that then Dean Holland's views were the "prevailing views taught in church during this particular time," i.e., the early 1970s. Although I didn't take a poll, I suppose that some of his ideas may have been prevalent among CES employees, but I don't think that they were all taught in Sunday School at church. Certainly among those I knew at that time, the issue had long been settled through a scholarly study of the sources. There are two articles on Lamanites in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism which represent dependable scholarship: (1) Gordon Thomasson, "Lamanites," and (2) John Sorenson, "Peoples of the Book of Mormon: Lamanites.". You can read them online at http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/.

[William Schryver]

... I assume Chris Smith is probably one of the people that fit into this description and he is a person that I respect for his intellectual integrity.

If you're looking to a career anti-Mormon to provide you answers as to the historicity of the Book of Mormon, there is no question what conclusions you will reach in the end.

Edited October 11, 2011 by William Schryver

[Craig Paxton]

Interesting article.

I have read it.

But I fail, somehow, to find the sentence, paragraph or passage in which Brother Holland asserts that the Nephites and Lamanites had exclusive occupancy of the entire continent of North and South America. Would you care to point it out to me?

You want to defend Holland …be my guest….

Two generations later the Lord was so pained by that generation “without affection” (Moses 7:33) that he opened the windows of heaven and cleansed the entire earth with water. Thus, the “everlasting decree” (Ether 2:10) was first taught that he who will not obey the Lord in righteousness will be swept from his sacred land. The lesson would be tragically retaught in dispensations yet to come.

Holy scripture records that “after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof.” (Ether 13:2.) Such a special place needed now to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune. To guarantee such sanctity the very surface of the earth was rent. In response to God’s decree, the great continents separated and the ocean rushed in to surround them. The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of God’s special purposes.

With care and selectivity, the Lord began almost at once to repeople the promised land. The Jaredites came first, with stories of the great flood fresh in their memories and the Lord’s solemn declaration ringing in their ears: “Whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them.” (Ether 2:8.)

Despite such counsel, however, the Jaredite civilization steadily degenerated into a violent society which forced a man to keep “the hilt of his sword in his right hand” (Ether 14:2)—until finally he “ate and slept, and prepared for death on the morrow.” (Ether 15:26.)

But even as the last light flickered on Jaredite civilization, a bold new sun rose to illuminate a thousand years of Nephite-Lamanite experience on the same soil. Despite periods of war and rebellion, these people nevertheless had great moments of power and purity, including the personal ministry of the resurrected Christ, who walked and talked and prayed with these New World inhabitants for three indescribable days. There in the meridian of time the land enjoyed three generations of peace and perfection, which it would not know again until the Master’s millennial reign.

There is so much that is just plain wrong with Holland’ pronouncements and his timeline of events.

Claim #1: A universal flood that "cleansed the entire earth? Didn't happen.

Claim #2: That flood waters receded off the face of "this" land (inferring America) leaving it uninhabited. Didn't happen

Claim #3: That America was somehow preserved...kept apart from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune. Didn't happen (in fact it was the indiscriminate traveler that first populated the Americas)

Claim #4: That there was some cataclysmic event that caused the” the very surface of the earth [to be] rent. In response to God’s decree, the great continents separated and the ocean rushed in to surround them. Didn’t happen. Mind you there is continental shift that has been ongoing for millions of years…but there was no, has never been a catastrophic event of the nature described by Holland that caused ocean waters to rush in between newly formed continants.

Claim #5:That the Americas were somehow “Set Apart” “without habitation” particularly after some imaginary universal flood cleansed the Americas from habitation. Didn’t happen

Claim #6: The Jaradite came first? Didn’t happen

The picture that Holland is painting is of an American continant that was swept free of life following a universal flood which was then FIRST populated by Jaradites then by Nephite/Lamanites. The only other people in the America's during the timeline that Holland is describing were the original aboriginal American inhabitants...who first came 10,000 -12,000 years before Hollands imaginary flood and 6,000 - 8,000 years before the imaginary Adam and Eve...but according to Holland they were all killed off by that universal flood to leave America uninhabited.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[LeSellers]

A prophet is only a prophet when what he proclaims in the name of the Lord is 100% accurate. I'm assuming this is kind of what you mean. The fact that at times they speak out on their own behalf. But then they are sending mixed signals right?

Perhaps they are, but it is not because they're not prophets when they are speaking under the inspiration of he Holy Ghost.

A prophet is a man first, a prophet second. He has no fewer personality quirks than anyone else. He may be stubborn (i.e., Jonah), he may be rich or poor, he may be (and most likely is) the product of his day (i.e., Jacob/Israel and his pilled rods).

But when he speaks by the power and authority of God, his words are true and they lead to Christ and Exaltation.

I don't think it is difficult to understand when they speak as individual men (i.e. just like you and me) and when they speak as a prophet. ... Others are much more liberal in their view and feel that every word that comes out of their mouth is revelation.

Typically our enemies take the latter stance: everything Joseph or Brigham ever said must have been in accordance with their prophetic callings, and, so, when something turns out to have been "wrong" (or could be spun as "wrong"), it is, in their world, "proof" he was not a prophet at all.

The plain fact is that Joseph had the privilege and curse of being born when there were newspapers and people who could read them. His actions, unlike those of his prophetic forerunners, were recorded and published for all to see. Isaiah and Moses, Jude and Paul did not have a set of paparazzi dogging their footsteps, had no stalkers (or at least none who wrote their every move).

Comparing the ancient prophets to modern prophets is to give those a huge advantage because with these, we have details of their lives with no parallel among the earlier ones. We know that Isaiah had two sons. We do not know if he beat them. We know Hosea had three children (and that one may have been the son of adultery), but we do not know if he taught them Hebrew. These five children were props for their prophecies, and their names were signs to the kings and people of the Lord's impending punishment for their sins. Nonetheless, the children, their symbolic functions achieved, disappear from the story. Did Mahershalahashbaz (swift to the spoil, speedy to the prey) have measles, or Lo-Ammi (not my people) wet the bed? Did they marry and make their mothers grandmothers?

The record is silent on most aspects of the ancient prophets' lives, not so with God's modern oracles. So the enemies of God's Church use the best (and usually the only) record of those prophets-with-no-last-names and compare it against the worst about prophets whose lives we know.

Notice our enemies do not say, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were ahead of their time in understanding that Negroes are also children of God and will be saved on the same basis as they, themselves, would be. Rather they take snippets of statements (usually making a different point entirely) and claim they were racists. In contrast, they do not use Paul's words, in re: women speaking in church, to show that Paul was a misogynist (indeed, they rarely mention this inconvenient fact).

The double standard is the antimormon's stock-in-trade—he cannot operate without it.

Lehi

[Craig Paxton]

Jeffrey Holland was not a General Authority of the LDS Church when writing that Ensign article. Lots of Church members have written articles for Church magazines over the years, and I am unaware of any responsible claim that they represent official policy. The views expressed were not the "prevailing views taught in church during this particular time," and represented only the opinion of a man with an academic position.

Arguments from authority are notoriously difficult to pin down when the authorities themselves hold a variety of positions. It is far better to argue from evidence in a logical and scientific manner. You shouldn't be fearful of that more sound approach.

I completely agree with almost every point you've made here....however I do believe that it was the prevailing views taught. In this thread I have shown now three GA's Kimball, McConkie and now Holland (who was not a GA at the time of this article)...who taught this line of thinking. They were completely and utterly wrong. Fair enough, they are men...I cut them some slack...The passasge of time has demonstrated that they did not have any special or a more reliable source of information than any other human...in fact, I think they were actually hampered by their religious views which misled them with false information. They have not demonstrated that they have no more insight into reality than any other human and may have actually been impared with a false dicotomy due to the influence of their religious beliefs.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Brant Gardner]

In this thread I have shown now three GA's Kimball, McConkie and now Holland (who was not a GA at the time of this article)...who taught this line of thinking.

Let's see. That must be at least four times repeating the same line without engaging the actual historical issues.

[Craig Paxton]

Let's see. That must be at least four times repeating the same line without engaging the actual historical issues.

Actually with this post it makes 5….but you seem to be the only one counting…

I think what is actually happening Brant is that you are using the cloak of history to somehow protect your beloved General Authorities from any responsibility for their own spoken and written words.

Let’s get to your point….throughout “Church History” various General Authorities have held differing views regarding various subjects. Ok point made…Its only stating the obvious. But you seem to be obsessed in protecting LDS Authorities from having…any authority, responsibility or accountability for what they say, write or think.

These are men who are in a unique position. They influence the thinking, beliefs and actions of millions of other believers. Brant whether or not you want to accept it or not…LDS members ARE influence by what GA’s write and say….they even have this power over member when they are wrong. It’s a fact…its reality…history or no history…it happened 181 years ago and it’s still happening today.

You somehow want to discount this reality…because thoughout “history” various GA’s have held various and often conflicting positions regarding one subject or another. So what? Members are impacted by whatever is taught by GA’s, even when what they are writing or preaching is false, wrong or untruthful.