6,674 undiscovered Maya structures

[InCognitus]

5 hours ago, theplains said:

@Calm

Yes. That is what I was saying.  Just search for "Cumorah" in the PDF file of the General
Conference (with the record of all the sermons) and you'll see what I meant.

Your use of the words "opinion" and "assumption" do not portray the way the revelation is
spoken of at a General Conference. If so, let's assign those words to everything spoken at
every General Conference.

I think the words "opinion" and "assumption" are quite appropriate, as I didn't find in that conference where connecting the hill in New York to the hill Ramah/Cumorah in the Book of Mormon is described as a "revelation". 

On the contrary, I find them making the connection to that hill based on reasoning and assumptions derived from several sources.  Anthony W. Ivins, for example, uses an article by B.H. Roberts published in the March 3, 1928 The Deseret News, for his reasoning.  In the Deseret News article, Roberts admits that Joseph Smith didn't say anything about the connection between the two hills, and Roberts himself makes the connection using an article published by Oliver Cowdery in the Messenger and Advocate and an experience recorded by David Whitmer (which can be interpreted in other ways) to draw the conclusion that the hill in New York is the same hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon.  It is clear that Roberts is doing this based on reasoning, not revelation.  

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, theplains said:

@Calm

Yes. That is what I was saying.  Just search for "Cumorah" in the PDF file of the General
Conference (with the record of all the sermons) and you'll see what I meant.

Your use of the words "opinion" and "assumption" do not portray the way the revelation is
spoken of at a General Conference. If so, let's assign those words to everything spoken at
every General Conference.

Brother Brigham said that "no man's opinion is worth a straw."

Of course it is true that a great many Latter-day Saints do not differentiate mere expression of opinion from actual revelation.  According to Brother Brigham, the only way to tell whether something is mere opinion (no matter how sincerely expressed) or actual revelation is by means of the Holy Spirit.  In other words, it is a personal non-transferrable witness -- which each person must replicate for himself.  To do otherwise leads to chaos.  We know very well that mere opinion-mongering is the source of rampant denominationalism within Protestantism.  That is the enemy of the unity of the Saints, the Body of Christ.

We are bound by the official Canon of Scripture.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 11/17/2024 at 6:08 PM, webbles said:

The Joseph Smith Papers still say it was in Fayette - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/place/fayette-township-new-york.  The Church's site for the Whitmer homestead also says so - https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/content/historic-sites/new-york/fayette/peter-whitmer-log-home-in-fayette-ny?lang=eng.  Another page says that most historians accept Fayette - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/founding-meeting-of-the-church-of-christ?lang=eng.

Yep.  I fully expect that the signage will continue to broadcast that historical mistake, even though the evidence is squarely against it. Bad historiography is no crowning achievement.  As to what most historians think, well . . .  I doubt that a vote was taken.

In the broad scheme of things, it doesn't really matter where the Church was organized, only that it was organized at all.  We have the same problems with scholarly understanding of Holy Writ.  Flawed humans cannot seem to get it right all the time.  As Pres Uchtdorf said:

Quote

        Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past.  We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church History, along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events, there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.  Sometimes questions arise because we simply don’t have all the information and we just need a bit more patience.  When the entire truth is eventually known, things that didn’t make sense to us before will be resolved to our satisfaction.
        Sometimes there’s a difference of opinion as to what the facts really mean.  A question that creates doubt in some, can, after careful investigation, build faith in others.
        And to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes.  There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.
        I suppose the Church would only be perfect, if it were run by perfect beings.  God is perfect and his doctrine is pure.  But he works through us, his imperfect children.  And imperfect people make mistakes.   October 5, 2013, LDS General Conference, Ensign, 43/11 (Nov 2013):22.

 

[webbles]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yep.  I fully expect that the signage will continue to broadcast that historical mistake, even though the evidence is squarely against it. Bad historiography is no crowning achievement.  As to what most historians think, well . . .  I doubt that a vote was taken.

In the broad scheme of things, it doesn't really matter where the Church was organized, only that it was organized at all.  We have the same problems with scholarly understanding of Holy Writ.  Flawed humans cannot seem to get it right all the time.  As Pres Uchtdorf said:

 

If the evidence is squarely against it, I would have thought the Joseph Smith Papers would say it.  Wouldn't they know of the scholarship?  Maybe in the course of going over all of the papers, they found something that actually puts the evidence squarely for the Fayette location?

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, webbles said:

If the evidence is squarely against it, I would have thought the Joseph Smith Papers would say it.  Wouldn't they know of the scholarship?  Maybe in the course of going over all of the papers, they found something that actually puts the evidence squarely for the Fayette location?

Those editing the Joseph Smith Papers are Church employees, and are beholden to the official LDS Church positions.  They are not independent scholars.  The documents they are editing do not place the organization of the Church in Fayette.

[theplains]

On 11/19/2024 at 12:46 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course it is true that a great many Latter-day Saints do not differentiate mere expression of opinion from actual revelation.  According to Brother Brigham, the only way to tell whether something is mere opinion (no matter how sincerely expressed) or actual revelation is by means of the Holy Spirit.  In other words, it is a personal non-transferrable witness -- which each person must replicate for himself.  To do otherwise leads to chaos.  We know very well that mere opinion-mongering is the source of rampant denominationalism within Protestantism.  That is the enemy of the unity of the Saints, the Body of Christ.

You need to ask the Holy Spirit if what you hear at General Conference is true or false.  You seem to dismiss
a sermon just because it is not using the word "revelation".

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, theplains said:

You need to ask the Holy Spirit if what you hear at General Conference is true or false.  You seem to dismiss
a sermon just because it is not using the word "revelation".

This is ridiculous.

[theplains]

On 11/18/2024 at 12:33 PM, webbles said:

There is a ton of debate over whether the Hill Cumorah in New York is the same as the Hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon.  The church has now officially stated that it has no position on specific locations - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/book-of-mormon-geography?lang=eng

So, even if the leaders back in 1928 felt like the Hill Cumorah in New York is the same as the Hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon, that is no longer the official position of the church.  I also don't see any revelation spoken in the 1928 General Conference.

I have never seen anything printed or spoken by the recent LDS Church indicating that what 
was taught in the 1928 General Conference about the hill Cumorah and the hill Ramah being the 
same was a false teaching which was deceiving those who listened to it and believed.

I think some teachings of the church are too easily dismissed when they are not associated with
the word "doctrine".

[theplains]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is ridiculous.

He @Robert F. Smith said he is bound by canon.  There is no heavenly mother in canon. Neither 
is the teaching that Heavenly Father was once a man who became a God or that Jesus is the first 
spirit child of heavenly parents who also became a God.

[Calm]

22 hours ago, theplains said:

I think some teachings of the church are too easily dismissed when they are not associated with
the word "doctrine".

You dismiss our unique beliefs whether they are labeled “doctrine” or not, so why should we care whether or not you are unhappy that we choose to distinguish between beliefs based on how solid evidence of actual revelation being involved and ones that are not?

You benefit if we don’t dismiss it because then you can claim “false doctrine”, but last I checked we are not required to make it easier for you to criticize our faith.

Edited November 26 by Calm

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, theplains said:

He @Robert F. Smith said he is bound by canon.  There is no heavenly mother in canon. Neither 
is the teaching that Heavenly Father was once a man who became a God or that Jesus is the first 
spirit child of heavenly parents who also became a God.

Still ridiculous 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

I have never seen anything printed or spoken by the recent LDS Church indicating that what 
was taught in the 1928 General Conference about the hill Cumorah and the hill Ramah being the 
same was a false teaching which was deceiving those who listened to it and believed.

I think some teachings of the church are too easily dismissed when they are not associated with
the word "doctrine".

 

The hill Cumorah and the hill Ramah are the same.  They have always been the same, see Ether 15:11.  You don't need to refer to a 1928 General Conference to say that Ramah and Cumorah are the same.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, theplains said:

You need to ask the Holy Spirit if what you hear at General Conference is true or false.  You seem to dismiss
a sermon just because it is not using the word "revelation".

The Holy Spirit doesn't care whether the word "revelation" is used in a sermon.  The Holy Spirit is a personal way to determine "truth."  It is non-transferrable to other persons, all of whom must seek their own confirmation or denial.  This leaves every individual in charge of his own destiny.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, theplains said:

He @Robert F. Smith said he is bound by canon.  There is no heavenly mother in canon. Neither 
is the teaching that Heavenly Father was once a man who became a God or that Jesus is the first 
spirit child of heavenly parents who also became a God.

The Canon of Holy Writ does not include a great many things, each of which may be a matter of personal testimony via the Holy Spirit.  Personal revelation.  This always brings in the possibility of widespread disagreement and contentiousness.  What is astonishing is the unity of the Latter-day Saints, despite that centrifugal potential.

[theplains]

On 11/26/2024 at 9:00 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

The Canon of Holy Writ does not include a great many things, each of which may be a matter of personal testimony via the Holy Spirit.  Personal revelation.  This always brings in the possibility of widespread disagreement and contentiousness.  What is astonishing is the unity of the Latter-day Saints, despite that centrifugal potential.

One can find unity even in contradictory LDS teachings.  For example: Jesus is the Eternal God
and he's also an eternal intelligence, who then became the first spirit child of heavenly parents, 
who then became a God.

What is your personal testimony of how heavenly Mother and Father became Gods themselves?

[theplains]

On 11/26/2024 at 8:54 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

The Holy Spirit doesn't care whether the word "revelation" is used in a sermon.  The Holy Spirit is a personal way to determine "truth."  It is non-transferrable to other persons, all of whom must seek their own confirmation or denial.  This leaves every individual in charge of his own destiny.

Instead of evaluating a person's role in the church when they say or write something, the 
better rule is, as Boyd K. Packer once said, "It isn't a question of who said it or when; 
the question is whether it is true".

For some Latter-day Saints, it will be true. For other Saints, it will be false.  Like truth and
error co-existing in unity instead of opposition.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/boyd-k-packer/follow-rule/

[theplains]

On 11/25/2024 at 3:42 PM, Calm said:

You dismiss our unique beliefs whether they are labeled “doctrine” or not, so why should we care whether or not you are unhappy that we choose to distinguish between beliefs based on how solid evidence of actual revelation being involved and ones that are not?

You benefit if we don’t dismiss it because then you can claim “false doctrine”, but last I checked we are not required to make it easier for you to criticize our faith.

Instead of evaluating a person's role in the church when they say or write something and then
have the Latter-day Saints view it as a doctrine or only a teaching, the better rule is, as Boyd K.
Packer once said, "It isn't a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true".

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, theplains said:

Instead of evaluating a person's role in the church when they say or write something and then
have the Latter-day Saints view it as a doctrine or only a teaching, the better rule is, as Boyd K.
Packer once said, "It isn't a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true".

And your point being? 

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, theplains said:

Instead of evaluating a person's role in the church when they say or write something, the 
better rule is, as Boyd K. Packer once said, "It isn't a question of who said it or when; 
the question is whether it is true".

For some Latter-day Saints, it will be true. For other Saints, it will be false.  Like truth and
error co-existing in unity instead of opposition.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/boyd-k-packer/follow-rule/

What is remarkable, as I have pointed out on this board, is that Latter-day Saint unity is so strong -- despite all the supposed centrifugal tendencies.  It is always incumbent on individual Saints to determine for themselves what is true via an inquiry directed to the Holy Spirit.  Otherwise they must survive on borrowed light.

That is very different from the Protestant tendency to disagree over minutiae and spin off into ever more numerous denominations, based on sola scriptura (reading and interpretation of biblical texts).

Edited Friday at 10:44 AM by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, theplains said:

One can find unity even in contradictory LDS teachings.  For example: Jesus is the Eternal God
and he's also an eternal intelligence, who then became the first spirit child of heavenly parents, 
who then became a God.

What is your personal testimony of how heavenly Mother and Father became Gods themselves?

They became gods via the same means available to all humans, and they themselves have a heavenly Mother & Father, ad infinitum.

[theplains]

On 12/5/2024 at 11:48 AM, Calm said:

And your point being? 

When a teaching by an LDS leader is either spoken of at General Conference or printed
in a church publication (past, present, or future), it is dismissed as opinion if the
person listening or reading deems it to be false or not being relevant to their salvation.
It's as if potentially worshipping a false god is not serious enough to warrant a change
in direction.

[theplains]

On 12/6/2024 at 5:48 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

They became gods via the same means available to all humans, and they themselves have a heavenly Mother & Father, ad infinitum.

Do you believe the heavenly Mother and Father of our Earth needed atonement for their
sins?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

Do you believe the heavenly Mother and Father of our Earth needed atonement for their
sins?

As mortals, of course.  Everyone without exception needs an atonement, unless our God the Father was the Savior of his people in his own time and place as a mortal.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, theplains said:

It's as if potentially worshipping a false god is not serious enough to warrant a change
in direction

Interesting viewpoint.

Do you follow all the instructions given in the scriptures?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As mortals, of course.  Everyone without exception needs an atonement, unless our God the Father was the Savior of his people in his own time and place as a mortal.

Out of curiosity why do you think only one person can be sinless and not more?  Or is there more to the Atonement than redemption of sin?

I am thinking your view is the latter, but most people’s reasoning I hear for why we need the Atonement is we are all sinful, so allowing that as a possible view as well.

I have always wondered myself why of one of God’s children can be sinless, why more couldn’t be as well even if they don’t show up on this earth.