SteveVH

Yes, I see that this thread has been moved to "Church History". I was told if I wanted to express a non-LDS view that I needed to post on "Christian Beliefs Board". That's hard to do when they move your thread. Very well. See ya'll later. I think I have my answer in more ways than one.

Yeah, you got me there.

Because this is a new thread I will respond with the Catholic position concerning revelation so that both positions are clear: "'In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.' (Heb 1:1-2) Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father's one, perfect, and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2: 'In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in his sole Word - and he has no more to say... because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some new vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty,' (St. John of the Cross, Ascent of Mt. Carmel) "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 65, 66) Yes, God inspires the leaders of our Church and yes they are guided by the Holy Spirit; one and the same thing. When Christ began to build his Church he made certain promises and gave amazing authority to that Church. He first gave the keys to the kingdom of God, entrusted to Peter. He then gave the power to bind and loose, the authority to legislate. What the Church does here is binding even in heaven. He then promised to remain with his Church until the end of time and to send the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. Instead of waiting for new revelation, the leaders of our Church, the bishops, are here to teach the Apostolic truth through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in doing so are prevented from error by that same Holy Spirit. That is where infallibility is so misunderstood. It is due to the action of the Holy Spirit, not the brilliance of a man. It means a greater understanding of a doctrine; a clearer way of expressing it. Doctrines can never change. Our understanding, however, and our ability to express the mysteries of God can grow and develop over the centuries. Public revelation is found in the Sacred Scriptures which were canonized by the Catholic Church, and in the oral transmission of the Apostolic Tradition. Examples of pubic revelation would be doctrines such as the Trinity, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the resurrection, original sin... those things that we are obligated to believe if we call ourselves Catholic. As for private revelation, this is the teaching, as I have already quoted: "67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations." (CCC par 67) Examples of private revelation would apparitions from Mary, or someone receiving a locution from Jesus. Many of these are approved of as authentic, but many more are not. In any case we are not bound to believe any of them, though I find those that have been approved to be most fascinating. In any event, they can never replace, change or supersede the deposit of faith we received from the Apostles. The sense that a prophet will receive new revelation from God. I will have to answer the rest of your post tomorrow. It is getting way to long and I am beat. Thanks for your questions.

I don't really know how to respond to this. If he didn't then why in the world did his associates say that he did. You know, Jesus never wrote down a word. We depend upon the writers of the New Testament, in particular the Gospel writers, to relate a true accounting of what he said and did. " It is difficult for a reasonable person to believe that such men as Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, David Whitmer, and many others, could speak frequently of the Spot where the Prophet Joseph Smith obtained the plates as the Hill Cumorah, and not be corrected by the Prophet, if that were not the fact. That they did speak of this hill in the days of the Prophet in this definite manner is an established record of history..." (Joseph Fielding Smith - Mormon prophet, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3, p.232-43.) " Was Joseph Fielding Smith just lying? Is his opinion here worth nothing? I can hardly remember what I wrote last week. It is fascinating that the office of the First Presidency had such astuteness in remembering the subject matter of a letter written three years prior and to have had the concern to follow it up for clarification, especially when it was in answer to a question from Brother Sparks from Oklahoma City. Three years later. Wow!

No. Never. I may relate a general opinion based upon what I have read here but I certainly do not share anyone's posts. The general comment I would probably make concerning this thread is that Mormons basically reject the assertions made by Joseph Smith, et al, as to the location of Hill Cumorah in favor of their modern scholars. So they don't excavate it because they don't believe it is there. Edit: I do remember one specific post I saw on this forum that I did specifically mention, but then only the subject matter. I didn't even quote it. Someone was defending abortion on the grounds that the aborted baby must have chosen to be aborted in its pre-mortal life, therefore it was okay. But no names and I didn't even mention this forum.

If you will look a little closer you will see that I qualified my definition of prophet, when used in connection with the Pope, to one who interprets divine truth. In that sense, and in that sense only, is the Pope a prophet. In a general sense we are all "prophets, priests and kings" by virtue of our Baptism. No, we do not believe in continued prophecy. We believe that God has said all he has to say in his Son, Jesus Christ. "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2Has in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" (Hebrews 1:1-2) We are no longer in need of prophets for the purpose of receiving further revelation. We are in great need of prophets who can interpret the truth given to us in light of our current time, culture and issues. The fullness of God's truth has already been given to us. We only await his return. The Pope and the bishops have a prophetic role in the Church by virtue of their teaching authority. Again, they interpret the divine will of God. That is the first definition of a prophet. Here is a quote from the Catechism concerning the Magisterium's role in interpreting private revelation: "67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 67) You will certainly find no reference to a bishop as a prophet in the Mormon sense of the word. Now, I think it is time to return to the topic.

Fair enough. I have never said that it was doctrine and completely understand why it is not. That has never been my point. There were a few comments that excavating Cumorah would mean nothing either way. That is the sentiment to which I was referring. I have no intention of trying to rattle you.

Okay, lets make this very clear. I am not trying in any way to insinuate that the location of the Hill Cumorah is doctrine. To excavate Cumorah would either confirm Joseph Smith's beliefs or not confirm them. Apparently no one believes what was taught about this subject for the greater part of the existence of the LDS Church. I am fine with that. Again, I have never said it was revealed doctrine. Yes I understand that modern day Mormons do not believe what Joseph Smith, et al claimed. Everyone has made that very clear and I am happy to accept that answer. It is at least reasonable. Your letter was written in 1993, not 1990. The letter I have is dated October 16, 1990. Not the same letter, but interesting that they say very different things within a three year time span.

No, Jason, I accept that you believe. I just don't understand how you arrive at your beliefs. Yes, I am certain that I approach many things with preconceived notions and those notions are non-LDS notions. No I have never been a member. Someone close to me became a member and that is when I started being interested in LDS beliefs, about five years ago. Just for grins, lets say that I run across something like this: "The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the earth, being about 6 feet in height. They dress very much like the Quaker style and are quite general in style or the one fashion of dress. They live to be very old; coming generally, near a thousand years. This is the description of them as given by Joseph the Seer, and he could 'See' whatever he asked the Father in the name of Jesus to see" Preconceived notion or not, I am going to ask if one is serious. And if one responds with "well it could be possible that when we landed on the moon we landed in an uninhabited area", or "Who is to say that they don't live underground", I am probably going to try and point some things out to this person. After reading what Joseph Smith and all the others had said about Cumorah, including an official letter from the office of the First Presidency dated in 1990, confirming that the hill in western New York was the hill referred to in the BoM, I don't think it is unreasonable for one to get the impression that this is what the LDS Church believed up to and including that date at a minimum. Assuming this to be the case, it is equally reasonable to ask the question: Why then do they not excavate it? And this question is based upon the fact that any suspected Christian religious site, outside of the Mormon world, is excavated. We want to know if what we believed was true is actually true. Do we need to re-think anything? Do we need to interpret the truth we have been given with a different perspective? Whatever the case, any and all truth that can be discovered can lead us to only one place; the truth. The closer we come to truth, the closer we come to God, whether through faith or reason. And yes, I certainly have my human weaknesses. I tend to get frustrated with answers that, in my mind, are non-answers. "If we excavated it then we would not have faith", and similar sentiments. Apparently I am to just let that go. Instead I try to point out that faith and reason should not be contradictory and that one can have both at the same time; indeed we must have both at the same time. The response I get is that I won't let someone speak for themselves. Everyone who has posted here has spoken for themselves. I have no power to not allow people to speak for themselves, nor would I want to.

Than you for your comments.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you for your comments.

Let me assure you, I do not come here with "gotcha" questions and then run back to Catholic Answers and report how I won. No one there even Knows I am here and I do not report back in any manner as to my discussions on this forum. If you doubt that, then please go to Catholic Answers Forum and read my posts. I use SteveVH on that forum. I did come here because of the topic which was being discussed on CAF and to which few if any Mormons would respond. When that happens I like to go to the horses mouth. And you know, I suppose that I could just post the question and sit back and read the answers, but that isn't really the purpose of a forum, is it?

Yes. It would mean that he was wrong and that what the LDS Church has believed (until very recently) was wrong. As late as 1990 an official letter from F. Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency, written to Bishop Darrell L. Brooks, responding to an inquiry addressed to President Gordon B. Hinckley as to the location of the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the BoM, said this: "The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of the General authorities , that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same referenced in the Book of Mormon." So the idea that this is something that has always just been up in the air is misleading. Does this prove the BoM false? No. Does this prove the LDS faith as false? No. What it does is establish the credibility of the people making the statements. And if what they say cannot be believed then I would advise the LDS Church to stop publishing these statements and only stick to "canonized doctrine". It doesn't. it just means that there is still no outside evidence in support of it. Borrowing from who? I have read the Book of Mormon, or at least a good portion of it. To be honest I did receive a testimony and that testimony was "put this book down". I actually would feel sick when I started reading it and something deep inside told me I should not be reading it. But we are really getting off the subject line here.

I will admit that I am use to being able to believe all that my Church teaches and holds as true. I have never had to try and sort out what is "opinion" from what is "doctrine". As a Catholic, I cannot and do not pick and choose what I wish to believe and not believe depending upon what I personally feel bound to believe. And please understand me here. If it was excavated and nothing was found, that in itself is not enough to disprove the Book of Mormon. What it would prove is that a definitive declaration from Joseph Smith, the founding prophet, was false. Whether or not that would rattle some is yet to be seen.

Yes, he is a prophet in the sense of the first definition of a prophet; somebody who interprets divine will: "somebody who claims to interpret or transmit the commands of a deity." Our Pope, together with the entire college of bishops, interpret divine will as revealed to us fully in the Person of Jesus Christ. See above. Make mistakes and be wrong about what? The things of God? I don't think so. Please show me a prophet in the Bible that gave a revelation and then said something that conflicted with that revelation? From the Book of Mormon: "Alma 22:10 ‘And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great spirit, and he created all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest though this?’ Alma 31:15 ‘Holy, Holy God; we believe that though art God, and we believe that thou art Holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever.’" From Joseph Smith: "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible, — I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form…’" (King Follet Discourse, Joseph Smith, History of the Church, volume 6, p305) Even worse are the "prophecies" of Joseph Smith which are contradicted and proven false by history itself: "4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. 5 For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house... 31 Therefore, as I said concerning the sons of Moses for the sons of Moses and also the sons of Aaron shall offer an acceptable offering and sacrifice in the house of the Lord, which house shall be built unto the Lord in this generation, upon the consecrated spot as I have appointed." (Doctrines and Covenants 84:2-5,31.) "President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. He then gave a relation of some of the circumstances attending us while journeying to Zion--our trials, sufferings; and said God had not designed all this for nothing, but He had it in remembrance yet; and it was the will of God that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, for the coming of the Lord, which was nigh--even fifty-six years should wind up the scene." (History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 189). "While discussing the petition to Congress, I prophesied, by virtue of the holy Priesthood vested in me, and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that, if Congress will not hear our petition and grant us protection, they shall be broken up as a government, and god shall **** them. And there shall nothing be left of them - not even a grease spot." (History of the Church, v.6 p. 116) "I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left for their wickedness." (History of the Church, v.5, p 394)

In short, then, the current Mormon position is that this definitive declaration from Joseph Smith is erroneous: "the Prophet Joseph Smith himself is on record, definitely declaring the present hill called Cumorah to be the exact hill spoken of in the Book of Mormon". Okay.

Well, please show me where I ever even implied that your entire faith is based upon the Hill Cumorah? I didn't, therefore your response is nonsensical. And no, archeology is not doctrine. But when known facts conflict with one's doctrine then one's doctrine is incorrect, not the other way around. We are not suppose to separate faith from reason. Both faith and reason are gifts from God. They are meant to work together, not in opposition to each other. God does not require that we abandon reason in order to have faith.

You are absolutely correct. Let me reword that. In my opinion, the reason Cumorah is not excavated is because the consequences of finding nothing would be too much to bear. Is that better?

Fair enough. But I understand more than you think I do. I can only relate this to my own experience. If our Pope, while having breakfast with a friend and not saying anything in his official capacity, was to utter a word that conflicted with Catholic doctrine or belief, he would be held to that statement. He cannot speak truth at one moment and then contradict that truth and be let off the hook because he was not speaking in his official capacity at that moment. He is responsible for every word that he utters, regarding faith and morals (which includes doctrines and beliefs). I am trying to imagine a true prophet of God at one moment giving revelation and the next just his opinion. A true prophet would never give his personal opinion just on the chance that it might be incorrect and mislead the people of God. That is the position our Church takes concerning infallibility. Infallibility doesn't mean our Pope and Magisterium know everything. It means that they are protected from bringing error into the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles. They would never make a comment, official or unofficial, that would conflict with the truth we have received. Why in the world would a prophet's own opinion ever conflict with revelation he has received from God? Think about it. "I received this revelation from God but in my opinion..." this doesn't make sense in the least. A prophet's opinion should be formed and shaped by the revelation he has received and should never conflict. I reject nothing contained in this quote. What it is saying is that God does not make men into dictating machines, but uses their own personalities and experiences in conveying a revealed truth. They are inspired by the Holy Spirit and convey the truth revealed to them in their own way. This is the Catholic position. What is not the Catholic position is that a prophet will give us a revealed truth from God one moment, and then give a conflicting position based upon his own opinion the next. I don't have to read through the Bible and try to discern Paul's personal opinion from what has been revealed by God. Joseph Smith taught that Moroni, being the last Nephite, buried his treasure where the last battle took place. He also taught that Moroni's spirit guarded the treasure, allowing only Jospeph Smith to access it. The entire idea that the site was located anywhere else is completely outside of what Joseph Smith taught. Yes, they are entitled to their own opinions on who might win the football game this weekend. They are not entitled to their own opinions when it comes to matters of faith. If they are, then you get what you asked for; the opinions of men. Well, that is a very difficult thing to do. It was a revealed truth from God that men should have more than one wife. Then it was a revealed truth from God that men should not have more than one wife. It was a revealed truth that blacks could not enter the Mormon priesthood. Then it was a revealed truth that they should be included. In the LDS Church one cannot know that what is revealed truth today will still be revealed truth tomorrow. So please tell me, what is "canonized scripture" when it comes to Mormon doctrine? Will it still be canonized scripture tomorrow?

That is a very recent position. Everyone seemed to know where it was at least up to 1990 and it was in New York. Have you not read the quotes I have posted? here is some more: "It is known that the Hill Cumorah where the Nephites were destroyed is the hill where the Jaredites were also destroyed. This hill was known to the Jaredites as Rama. It was approximately near to the waters of Ripliancum, which the Book of Ether says, "by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all." Mormon adds: "And it came to pass that we did march forth to the land of Cumorah, and we did pitch our tents round about the hill Cumorah; and it was in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains; and here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites." "It must be conceded that this description fits perfectly the land of Cumorah in New York, as it has been known since the visitation of Moroni to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for the hill is in the proximity of the Great Lakes and also in the land of many rivers and fountains. Moreover, the Prophet Joseph Smith himself is on record, definitely declaring the present hill called Cumorah to be the exact hill spoken of in the Book of Mormon. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation , Vol.3, Bookcraft, 1956, p.232-43.) I have not set up any straw man. I am merely showing you the words of your founding prophet and succeeding prophets and leaders. They seemed more than a little certain that it was located in New York. Do Mormon scholars trump the words of Mormon prophets?. As shown above, "the Prophet Joseph Smith himself is on record, definitely declaring the present hill called Cumorah to be the exact hill spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

You know no such thing. You may believe it, but you do not know it. This is just contrary to the example Jesus left us. He did not say: "If I wanted, I could heal this man and have him take up his mat and walk. But I won't because I want you to have faith instead". He knew that his miracles would bring faith, not destroy it. Even when Jesus appeared in the upper room, he did not tell Thomas "I would let you put your fingers into the wound in my side but instead I want you to have faith". Yes, he commends those who believe without seeing, but he does not withhold the knowledge that it is really him. But here is the deal. When I study my Church, its history and its doctrines and beliefs, that knowledge helps build my faith, not tear it down or lessen it in any way. The more I study, the greater my faith. When I go to Capernaum and visit Peter's house; when I go to the hill in Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified and visit the tomb where he was buried; when I go and swim in the Sea of Galilee; all of these things help make me realize that my faith is based upon real events in history; real people; real places. Does this mean that I can now live my life without faith? Of course not. Everyone has the same opportunity to study history, to go to these places, to study these people. There are many who still choose not to believe. Are you telling me that if Hill Cumorah was excavated and they found remnants of metal swords, breast plates, chariots and skeletal remains of millions that this would not help build the faith of Mormons and influence the entire world as to the credibility of Joseph Smith and the BoM? If this is not the case, then why are there Mormon archeologists still looking for evidence elsewhere? Using your logic, there should be no Mormon archeologists working to find evidence because they would be removing the opportunity to have faith instead of knowledge. I would bet every paycheck for the rest of my life that if Mormon archeologists found anything that supports the BoM that it would be published before you could blink. The reason Cumorah is not excavated is because the consequences of finding nothing would be too much to bear.

With all due respect, this is the answer I always get when ever a contradiction arises. "Well, he wasn't speaking as a prophet when he said that." I will answer your question with the words from Joseph Fielding Smith, once again: "Further, the fact that all of his associates from the beginning down have spoken of it as the identical hill where Mormon and Moroni hid the records, must carry some weight. It is difficult for a reasonable person to believe that such men as Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, David Whitmer, and many others, could speak frequently of the Spot where the Prophet Joseph Smith obtained the plates as the Hill Cumorah, and not be corrected by the Prophet, if that were not the fact. That they did speak of this hill in the days of the Prophet in this definite manner is an established record of history..." (Joseph Fielding Smith - Mormon prophet Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3, p.232-43.) And I don't understand why everyone keeps going back to South America. If the Church leaders I quoted above had said that the battle took place in an unknown area of South America which is yet undiscovered we would not be having this conversation.

Except that, per my quotations, the location of Hill Cumorah is in New York, not central or South America. "The Church has long maintained, as attested to be references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon." (F. Michael Watson - First Presidency Secretary, Letter dated October 16, 1990) Yeah, I'm fine walking around like that and if this is the extent of the answers to the question then you are correct; I would be very unsatisfied with your answers. As far as the weight of evidence being against the BoM, that would be an understatement. To date, there is zero evidence in favor. Which begs the question: Do you not trust the words of your founding prophet, as well as Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, David Whitmer, and many others who state in no uncertain terms that the great battle took place in the " western part of the state of New York near Palmyra" enough to actually verify this claim? I don't think the question I asked "Why doesn't the LDS Church excavate Cumorah" is an unreasonable question. I can't think of any important Christian religious site that has not been excavated. This is usually what people do when they are seeking truth and are willing to accept whatever that truth may be, without worrying about the consequences of coming up empty.

Well, thanks for participating. And you have a good day too.