Excavation of Hill Cumorah


SteveVH
 Share

Recommended Posts

An excellent example of an assumption stated as an absolute.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Which would make sense if Mormons based their entire faith on the hill Cumorah. We don't, that's ridiculous. Archaeology isn't doctrine.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. But I understand more than you think I do.

I'm not sure by your posts...;)

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).

Is the Pope a prophet?

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.

Are the Pope and Magisterium prophets of the Lord? I'm not sure why you're referring to infallibility of your leaders when, as far as I know, Catholics do not regard them as prophets just like those we read in the Bible. Therefore, why should we expect the prophets of the restored Church to function as non-prophets in the Catholic Church?

Prophets can make mistakes and be wrong about things. We see this right in the Bible, I assume you are familiar with that. Divine revelation is never wrong, but prophets can be wrong about something. This is an important distinction, and is Biblical.

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.

There is no example of a Latter-day prophet receiving revelation from God and giving an opinion conflicting with that. If there is, please give evidence.

And Latter-day Saints rely completely on God's revelations throughout the ages, including post-Biblical, as contained in our Standard Works. We also receive personal revelation from God as well, following the Biblical example.

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.

See above.

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.

In the quote I was replying to, provided by you, it quite clearly stated that Joseph and all of his associates have always taught that the place where Moroni anciently hid the gold plates is the same place that Joseph recovered the plates. This is what we all believe.

The question then becomes, is the place where the battle took place the same as where Moroni buried the plates. As we have already seen, varying opinions have been given throughout Church history. Indeed, from the actual text of the Book of Mormon, we see that the topography and geography described does not match the upstate New York Cumorah.

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.

Thanks for your opinion. There's no need to overlay your view of that onto what Latter-day Saints believe about ourselves and our prophets and apostles.

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.

Oh, you mean like the differences between the Old Testament and New Testament? Surely you see the fallacy in your own argument. The same principle applies. It has been a revealed truth that God extends His priesthood to whomever He chooses (I assume you can see how that works going from Old Testament to New Testament, correct?). God is not static, and we see clear precedent in the Bible as to how God functions in revealing His will to His people.

So please tell me, what is "canonized scripture" when it comes to Mormon doctrine? Will it still be canonized scripture tomorrow?

Canonized scripture is what is contained in the Standard Works. I thought you were familiar with Mormonism? :confused::D

And yes, it will still be canonized scripture tomorrow. Indeed, our canon is open, since God still speaks to His people, the Lord continues to reveal Himself to us, and further light from God could be revealed to His prophets at any time, and be added to canonized scripture, just like in the New Testament Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And 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. I, as a member of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, can do all of the things you said above, and all of that applies to me, and ever other Latter-day Saint.

I, and many other members of the restored Church, have studied much material, written by both Latter-day Saints, and non-LDS, that support our beliefs and practices. This isn't just related to the Book of Mormon, but also many of our restored beliefs. As time passes, with advancing science and technology, the more evidences mount supporting the Book of Mormon, other Restoration scriptures, and Restoration beliefs. I personally am excited for a book to be released later this year by Latter-day Saint scholar Dr. John L. Sorenson (PhD in Anthropology) giving an extremely lengthy and detailed treatise on the relationship between Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon. I rather enjoy this very brief summary he provides (posted in this thread at MDDB ):

My forthcoming book, Mormon’s Codex (in prolonged editing at Maxwell Institute; I hope it will appear in print shortly after the first of the year), will be my ultimate contribution to presenting and establishing truth in relation to the scripture. It will establish that nearly 400 “correspondences” are found between Mormon’s volume and the scholarly literature on Mesoamerica (based on a 133-page bibliography). The book will be bulky, of course (hence the lengthy editorial process). It will represent (almost) all the truth I have been able to establish in my scholarly effort. I believe it will establish beyond reasonable question to both Latter-day Saints and non-LDS scholars as well that Joseph Smith had in his possession, and translated, a Mesoamerican codex written by Mormon in the late fourth century AD. I do not directly comment much on alternative “theories” of how the text of the scripture came to be; I simply, straightforwardly lay out what the text tells me: Joseph had a codex written on metal plates. There is no other explanation for the “Mesoamericanisms” found in the scripture.

Also see the Summary Conclusion of the book, posted in the thread:

Mormons Codex - General Discussions - Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board - Page 8

Oh and of course there's his previous short book on the matter, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon.

Very interesting, for a book Joseph and/or his companions just made up. :animatedidea:

No, the reason Cumorah is not excavated is because those same scholars you are referring to don't believe that that is the Cumorah where the remains and artifacts would be found. Yes, it is the Cumorah where Moroni buried the gold plates, and where Joseph found them, but it is not the Cumorah that Latter-day Saint scholars are looking for, because those Latter-day Saint scholars believe that the American portion of the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica. But then, more than one person has said that already.

Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon « FAIR

Book of Mormon Evidences, Part One: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility

Book of Mormon Evidence, Part Two: Chiasmus, Olives, Volcanoes, Ancient Names Like Alma, and More

Book of Mormon Evidence, Part 3

The Arabian Bountiful Discovered? Evidence for Nephi's Bountiful - Warren P. Aston - Journal of Book of Mormon Studies - Volume 7 - Issue 1

Joseph's Prophecy of Moses and Aaron - John A. Tvedtnes - Insights - Volume 21 - Issue 1

Lehi in the Desert

Meridian - Surviving Jaredite Names in Mesoamerica - Meridian Magazine - LDS, Mormon and Latter-day Saint News and Views

Daniel C. Peterson: "Evidences of the Book of Mormon"

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/01/mounting-evidence-for-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

And that's just an extremely small taste. This is why your argument unfortunately does not hold much weight with those Latter-day Saints that have studied both sides of the matter, including the works of Latter-day Saint scholars on the matter (and is an argument we've heard for years, which demonstrates a lack of actual engagement with scholarly material from our side of the matter). So, while we certainly exercise our faith in God our Eternal Father, praying to Him in the name of Jesus Christ for guidance and answers to our questions, and we believe that God can and does answer our prayers, and that we can receive that answer through the powerful witness of the Holy Ghost (just like we read in the Bible), we don't just turn our brains off, and we use reason too, and there are many Church sponsored and unaffiliated organizations and people that engage in scholarly work in support of the Church of Jesus Christ and the Restoration.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, please show me where I ever even implied that your entire faith is based upon the Hill Cumorah?

You talk about not finding archaeological evidence under Cumorah as if it would be a death knell for the credibility of the Church and Joseph Smith. I disagree with that basic claim, for reasons I'll explain more below.

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.

I agree with you here. Still, though, you are trying to draw a reason/doctrine conflict where I don't think there is one. I personally don't feel doctrinally bound to any statements made by prophets on where the last great battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites took place (this is just my personal opinion, others may disagree with me). I don't even view the exact location of the event as particularly important. It would be cool to know, but I don't hang my faith on it. If the hill was excavated and nothing was found under it, I'd just shrug and say "well, I guess that battle didn't happen at that exact spot." I don't see any justification for your supposed "consequences [that would] be too much to bear," because I don't think archaeology is doctrinal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The old saying about throwing stones while living in glass houses, seems apposite here.

Would it really kill us all to just agree that the LDS Church has, in times past, hitched its wagon to some questionable interpretations of archaeology; just as the Catholic Church has, in times past, hitched its wagon to some questionable interpretations of astronomy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...So, the question, very simply is, why does the LDS Church not excavate Cumorah and forever put to rest any doubt in the credibility of both Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon? Very interested in your thoughts and opinions.

Thanks.

Bold added for emphasis.

Stephen, I am confused at why you are really even here. Those that have commented have given their thoughts and opinions on the matter, but you seem intent on debunking every last one of them.

I have my theory, that is the other site where you came from was tired of it and you moved on to this one. Did you really come here with the idea that you were going accept the opinions of those on this board? Or was it more to show us that you "know more than" we think you do on this subject.

I truly am curious about your intentions. Because thus far, it has not appeared to be one of interest on your part.

If I have mis-read I do apologize. Anyone feel free to correct me. I do not want to derail this thread, but it already seems to be going that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good afternoon StephenVH. I hope you have been well! :)

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.

The truth is that it doesn't matter...to you. He was wrong or he was not wrong. Whether either or is true, will you sincerely and with real intent consider the evidence in the post Jason_J provided? When Mormon's Codex comes out, will you seriously and sincerely considered the implications of Mormon's Codex?

What if Joseph Smith was wrong about where the battles took place in the Book of Mormon? What does that mean?

How does this establish whether the book is true? The Book of Mormon stands on its own merits. Meaning, look to the book itself to discover what it contains. Your argument isn't even your own. It is one that you are borrowing. Why not read the Book of Mormon, seriously study it's content, pray about it, and then examine the evidence with real intent and with sincerity. If nothing else you will be in a position to make your own arguments for or against the book. Then you can see whether what you think the book says matches with what the book actually says. You don't have to rely on false notions or prejudices.

Respectfully,

Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the Pope a prophet?

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.

Are the Pope and Magisterium prophets of the Lord? I'm not sure why you're referring to infallibility of your leaders when, as far as I know, Catholics do not regard them as prophets just like those we read in the Bible. Therefore, why should we expect the prophets of the restored Church to function as non-prophets in the Catholic Church?

See above.

Prophets can make mistakes and be wrong about things. We see this right in the Bible, I assume you are familiar with that. Divine revelation is never wrong, but prophets can be wrong about something. This is an important distinction, and is Biblical.

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?

There is no example of a Latter-day prophet receiving revelation from God and giving an opinion conflicting with that. If there is, please give evidence.

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You continue to quote Joseph Fielding Smith about what Joseph Smith believed, but quoting a book that is not canonized does nothing for your argument, particularly since Joseph Fielding Smith admitted it was only his "opinion" that it was the place of the final battle (see my previous post). You have provided quotes which support your reasoning and I have provided quotes which say the opposite. This only goes to show my point. There is no doctrine on the issue, only conjecture. I stand by my argument. You are trying to force a belief of the final battles being in New York so you can refute it. But since there is no doctrine on it's location then the argument is pointless. If it was a doctrine, then several past prophets have been teaching the opposite of what the Lord revealed, which is not the case.

Daniel C Peterson once said "“we have books published by the Church's wholly owned publishing company arguing that those battles took place elsewhere. We have articles published in the Church's official magazine arguing that those battles took place elsewhere. We have scholars at the Church's wholly-owned and closely-managed university arguing that those battles took place elsewhere. We have an Institute at that university that is publicly and openly associated with the view that those battles took place elsewhere. And, for what it's worth, I've spoken directly with General Authorities of the Church who believe that those battles took place elsewhere. If a New York location for the final battles were truly a binding and official doctrine of the Church, it's unthinkable that the leaders of the Church would permit vocal and public dissent from that view in the Church's own magazines, in books published by its publishing company, and in its own university.”

Even the Book of Mormon insinuates 2 Cumorahs

Mormon 6:6 “And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I give unto my son Moroni.”

So the plates were buried in a hill called Cumorah, except for the gold plates. This was the same hill called Ramah by the Jaredites. Moroni then traveled many years avoiding any danger.

“I wander whithersoever I can for the safety of mine own life" Moroni 1:3

Why would Moroni wander for so many years only to come back to the same area they were trying to kill him?

You can read more about it here: Were There Two Cumorahs? - Sidney B. Sperry - Journal of Book of Mormon Studies - Volume 4 - Issue 1

The Book of Mormon also describes the geographical area of Cumorah, and the New York Cumorah does not fit that geography. Take for example the narrow neck of land. It is located south of Cumorah, but if the NY Cumorah was the location of the final battles, the only narrow neck is directly west of Cumorah. The geography just doesn't fit.

Again, quoting Harold B. Lee "Well, if the Lord wanted us to know where it was, or where Zarahemla was, he’d have given us latitude and longitude, don’t you think?" Odd thing to say if the Lord DID reveal it's location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You talk about not finding archaeological evidence under Cumorah as if it would be a death knell for the credibility of the Church and Joseph Smith. I disagree with that basic claim, for reasons I'll explain more below.

I agree with you here. Still, though, you are trying to draw a reason/doctrine conflict where I don't think there is one. I personally don't feel doctrinally bound to any statements made by prophets on where the last great battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites took place (this is just my personal opinion, others may disagree with me). I don't even view the exact location of the event as particularly important. It would be cool to know, but I don't hang my faith on it. If the hill was excavated and nothing was found under it, I'd just shrug and say "well, I guess that battle didn't happen at that exact spot." I don't see any justification for your supposed "consequences [that would] be too much to bear," because I don't think archaeology is doctrinal.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

So you believe your church is led by prophets? That is a first I've ever heard from a Catholic, nor is it something I was ever taught as a Catholic. In contrast, we Latter-day Saints firmly and loudly proclaim that the restored Church of Jesus Christ is led by prophets, men who receive divine revelation from God to lead His people, men who can also receive further revelation as Christ continues to reveal Himself to us this day.

Please cite an actual Catholic document demonstrating the belief that the Pope and the College of Bishops are prophets. If you cannot, then that is merely your opinion, and not an actual official Catholic Church viewpoint.

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?

Red herring. I never said anything of the sort. You seem to be continuously reading things into the words people say. Please read my words again.

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)

Again, I thought you were familiar with what Latter-day Saints actually believe? :confused::D.

Latter-day Saints certainly believe that the Father is embodied. However, that does not mean that He isn't Spirit too (indeed, when Jesus came to the earth then ascended to Heaven, He didn't stop being a spirit, did He?). God is a spirit, was a spirit, and will forever be a spirit. We believe as our scriptures teach, and Jesus' example demonstrates why your attempted criticism fails.

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)

No need for the scare quotes (though amusing).

And as for the alleged false prophecies, well, nothing new there:

Generation

Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies - FAIRMormon

Joseph Smith's Alleged 56-Year Second Coming Prophecy - Revision - SHIELDS

Did Joseph Smith deliver prophecies that didn't come true?

:yawn:

And of course some fulfilled prophecies, for good measure:

LDS FAQ: Fulfilled Prophecies of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet

And as for how Latter-day prophets are certainly prophets in the Biblical sense, and are certainly not supposed to be inspired robots that are infallible and never make mistakes or are not entitled to their opinions, including on faith matters:

The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy

On the Fallibility of Inspired Human Leaders in the True Church of Jesus Christ

Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.’"

The second quote is coming from the apostate Zoramites, therefore, cannot be used as evidence of LDS or Nephite belief.

The first quote is Aaron finding common ground. I would have said the EXACT same thing if I was in this same situation. Lamoni's father knew God as the Great spirit, and Aaron was teaching him in language he would understand. If I was teaching a Muslim, I would explain God in terms they would understand. In times past, I have taught them and used the term Allah when speaking about God. That does not mean I accept all Muslim beliefs because I used that term, only that it was a term they understood

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)

Interesting about this quote is how accurate it is in relation to ancient thought. Here are a few interesting articles on the subject:

2004 The King Follett Discourse in the Light of Ancient and Medieval Jewish and Christian Beliefs « FAIR

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.)

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Alleged_false_prophecies/Independence_temple_to_be_built_%22in_this_generation%22

Christ defines a generation in Mat. 24:34 as about 2,000 years. Also in Jonah 3:1,2,5,10 God tells Jonah to tell Nineveh that it would be destroyed in 40 days. It never happened. Would that make Jonah a false Prophet or God a liar? No, it wouldn’t. They weren’t destroyed because they repented (vs. 5-8)

From the wiki "So, the nineteenth-century understanding of KJV Biblical/religious usage of "generation" includes such variations as:

all the descendants of

history

contemporaries

succession or series of people from same stock

race, posterity

one hundred years

thirty-eight years

people

Contemporary with Joseph Smith, Webster's 1828 dictionary defined "generation" as:

...2. A single succession in natural descent, as the children of the same parents; hence, an age. Thus we say, the third, the fourth, or the tenth generation. Gen.15.16.

3. The people of the same period, or living at the same time. O faithless and perverse generation. Luke 9.

4. Genealogy; a series of children or descendants from the same stock. This is the book of the generations of Adam. Gen.5.

5. A family; a race.

6. Progeny; offspring.[2]

"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).

This does a great job of answering this criticism: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Alleged_false_prophecies/Second_Coming_to_be_in_1890

"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)

The above quotes are a matter of timing. I'm not sure if you are a Christian or Atheist, but there are still numerous prophecies in the Bible which are technically unfulfilled. This does not make John, Christ, or other Biblical figures false prophets, only that these prophecies will be fulfilled at a future date. This is like calling Moses and Isaiah false prophets in 400 BC because they prophesied of Christ, yet he had not come yet. Just because prophecies have not happened yet does not mean that they won't. http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Alleged_false_prophecies/Government_to_be_overthrown_and_wasted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bold added for emphasis.

Stephen, I am confused at why you are really even here. Those that have commented have given their thoughts and opinions on the matter, but you seem intent on debunking every last one of them.

I have my theory, that is the other site where you came from was tired of it and you moved on to this one. Did you really come here with the idea that you were going accept the opinions of those on this board? Or was it more to show us that you "know more than" we think you do on this subject.

I truly am curious about your intentions. Because thus far, it has not appeared to be one of interest on your part.

If I have mis-read I do apologize. Anyone feel free to correct me. I do not want to derail this thread, but it already seems to be going that way.

No, I agree with you. I don't think he's interested in hearing our opinions and understanding our perspectives, and learning how believing Latter-day Saints understand our own faith (I doubt he's read the links I've provided), but is attempting some sort of "gotcha", then go back to Catholic Answers Forum and report how he "won".

But I could be wrong, hopefully. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Mormon's Codex comes out, will you seriously and sincerely considered the implications of Mormon's Codex?

Yes.

What if Joseph Smith was wrong about where the battles took place in the Book of Mormon? What does that mean?

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".

How does this establish whether the book is true?

It doesn't. it just means that there is still no outside evidence in support of it.

The Book of Mormon stands on its own merits. Meaning, look to the book itself to discover what it contains. Your argument isn't even your own. t is one that you are borrowing.

Borrowing from who?

Why not read the Book of Mormon, seriously study it's content, pray about it, and then examine the evidence with real intent and with sincerity. If nothing else you will be in a position to make your own arguments for or against the book. Then you can see whether what you think the book says matches with what the book actually says. You don't have to rely on false notions or prejudices.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I agree with you. I don't think he's interested in hearing our opinions and understanding our perspectives, and learning how believing Latter-day Saints understand our own faith (I doubt he's read the links I've provided), but is attempting some sort of "gotcha", then go back to Catholic Answers Forum and report how he "won".

But I could be wrong, hopefully. ;)

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second quote is coming from the apostate Zoramites, therefore, cannot be used as evidence of LDS or Nephite belief.

The first quote is Aaron finding common ground. I would have said the EXACT same thing if I was in this same situation. Lamoni's father knew God as the Great spirit, and Aaron was teaching him in language he would understand. If I was teaching a Muslim, I would explain God in terms they would understand. In times past, I have taught them and used the term Allah when speaking about God. That does not mean I accept all Muslim beliefs because I used that term, only that it was a term they understood

Interesting about this quote is how accurate it is in relation to ancient thought. Here are a few interesting articles on the subject:

2004 The King Follett Discourse in the Light of Ancient and Medieval Jewish and Christian Beliefs « FAIR

Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies/Independence temple to be built "in this generation" - FAIRMormon

Christ defines a generation in Mat. 24:34 as about 2,000 years. Also in Jonah 3:1,2,5,10 God tells Jonah to tell Nineveh that it would be destroyed in 40 days. It never happened. Would that make Jonah a false Prophet or God a liar? No, it wouldn’t. They weren’t destroyed because they repented (vs. 5-8)

From the wiki "So, the nineteenth-century understanding of KJV Biblical/religious usage of "generation" includes such variations as:

all the descendants of

history

contemporaries

succession or series of people from same stock

race, posterity

one hundred years

thirty-eight years

people

Contemporary with Joseph Smith, Webster's 1828 dictionary defined "generation" as:

...2. A single succession in natural descent, as the children of the same parents; hence, an age. Thus we say, the third, the fourth, or the tenth generation. Gen.15.16.

3. The people of the same period, or living at the same time. O faithless and perverse generation. Luke 9.

4. Genealogy; a series of children or descendants from the same stock. This is the book of the generations of Adam. Gen.5.

5. A family; a race.

6. Progeny; offspring.[2]

This does a great job of answering this criticism: Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies/Second Coming to be in 1890 - FAIRMormon

The above quotes are a matter of timing. I'm not sure if you are a Christian or Atheist, but there are still numerous prophecies in the Bible which are technically unfulfilled. This does not make John, Christ, or other Biblical figures false prophets, only that these prophecies will be fulfilled at a future date. This is like calling Moses and Isaiah false prophets in 400 BC because they prophesied of Christ, yet he had not come yet. Just because prophecies have not happened yet does not mean that they won't. Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies/Government to be overthrown and wasted - FAIRMormon

Thank you for your comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bold added for emphasis.

Stephen, I am confused at why you are really even here. Those that have commented have given their thoughts and opinions on the matter, but you seem intent on debunking every last one of them.

I have my theory, that is the other site where you came from was tired of it and you moved on to this one. Did you really come here with the idea that you were going accept the opinions of those on this board? Or was it more to show us that you "know more than" we think you do on this subject.

I truly am curious about your intentions. Because thus far, it has not appeared to be one of interest on your part.

If I have mis-read I do apologize. Anyone feel free to correct me. I do not want to derail this thread, but it already seems to be going that way.

Thank you for your comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you believe your church is led by prophets? That is a first I've ever heard from a Catholic, nor is it something I was ever taught as a Catholic. In contrast, we Latter-day Saints firmly and loudly proclaim that the restored Church of Jesus Christ is led by prophets, men who receive divine revelation from God to lead His people, men who can also receive further revelation as Christ continues to reveal Himself to us this day.

Please cite an actual Catholic document demonstrating the belief that the Pope and the College of Bishops are prophets. If you cannot, then that is merely your opinion, and not an actual official Catholic Church viewpoint.

Red herring. I never said anything of the sort. You seem to be continuously reading things into the words people say. Please read my words again.

Again, I thought you were familiar with what Latter-day Saints actually believe? :confused::D.

Latter-day Saints certainly believe that the Father is embodied. However, that does not mean that He isn't Spirit too (indeed, when Jesus came to the earth then ascended to Heaven, He didn't stop being a spirit, did He?). God is a spirit, was a spirit, and will forever be a spirit. We believe as our scriptures teach, and Jesus' example demonstrates why your attempted criticism fails.

No need for the scare quotes (though amusing).

And as for the alleged false prophecies, well, nothing new there:

Generation

Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies - FAIRMormon

Joseph Smith's Alleged 56-Year Second Coming Prophecy - Revision - SHIELDS

Did Joseph Smith deliver prophecies that didn't come true?

:yawn:

And of course some fulfilled prophecies, for good measure:

LDS FAQ: Fulfilled Prophecies of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet

And as for how Latter-day prophets are certainly prophets in the Biblical sense, and are certainly not supposed to be inspired robots that are infallible and never make mistakes or are not entitled to their opinions, including on faith matters:

The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy

On the Fallibility of Inspired Human Leaders in the True Church of Jesus Christ

Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets

Than you for your comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Glad to hear. And yes, I already posted links to two of your posts in the "Cumorah" thread over there.

The problem is you don't seem to be able to accept how we, believing Latter-day Saints, understand our own history, our own leaders, our own beliefs. You repeatedly dismiss it al in favor for your own non-LDS (have you ever even been a member?) view and read things with your preconceived notions. We post something, and you say, essentially "no, sorry, that's not what he really meant" or something similar.

There's nothing wrong with dialoguing and debating. You should do that. The problem is the way you do it, and how you don't let us speak for ourselves and for our own faith (especially when you rely on tired arguments like "false prophecies").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

From a Mormon standpoint, it's important to make that distinction because we believe in continuing revelation. This implies that there's a whole bunch of stuff that we don't know yet. For instance:

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

We can use reason and try to build off what we already know to try to fill that gap, but that must be combined with an acknowledgement that some things have simply not been revealed to us and we can only hope for more knowledge and truths to be revealed to us in the future. Thus, until God reveals all truth to us, we're always going to have a combination of doctrine and opinion in our heads and conversations.

Now, you seem so assume I'm picking what I want to believe and what I don't want to believe based on what's convenient, but that is not true at all. Instead, I'm saying that I don't think the precise locations of various Book of Mormon events have been revealed to us by God, and thus I must acknowledge that we as Latter-day Saints simply do not know on a doctrinal level where Book of Mormon events took place.

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.

Here's where I want to be very clear: I do not think any declaration of archaeology is a pronunciation of doctrine unless such a fact was said to be revealed by God. I'd go deeper into this, but I think the last couple sections of this paper that Jason_J linked to has already explained this line of reasoning well.

Whether or not that would rattle some is yet to be seen.

If you're trying to "rattle" me (or my beliefs, etc.), you aren't doing a very good job of it. ;)

Edited by LittleWyvern
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you are mistaking assumption for doctrine. Because someone assumes a certain idea does not make it revelation or doctrine. There has been past past leaders who have made that assumption, and there are others who have not. If it was as black and white as you assume, then there wouldn't be a discrepancy. So either you, as an outsider, are correct by only quoting that which supports your case and ignoring the rest, or, you can take all of the evidence into consideration and realize there is no revealed doctrine on the issue.

The Church published the Encyclopedia of Mormonism a few years back and under the entry of Cumorah, it states "“Because the New York site does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Book of Mormon geography, some Latter-day Saints have looked for other possible explanations and locations, including Mesoamerica. Although some have identified possible sites that may seem to fit better (Palmer), there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site that has been suggested.”

This is almost word for word what was written in "1990 an official letter from F. Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency" which reads:

“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 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” Office of the First Presidency, 23 April 1993

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is you don't seem to be able to accept how we, believing Latter-day Saints, understand our own history, our own leaders, our own beliefs.

No, Jason, I accept that you believe. I just don't understand how you arrive at your beliefs.

You repeatedly dismiss it al in favor for your own non-LDS (have you ever even been a member?) view and read things with your preconceived notions.

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.

We post something, and you say, essentially "no, sorry, that's not what he really meant" or something similar.

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.

There's nothing wrong with dialoguing and debating. You should do that. The problem is the way you do it, and how you don't let us speak for ourselves and for our own faith (especially when you rely on tired arguments like "false prophecies").

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.

Edited by StephenVH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you are mistaking assumption for doctrine.

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.

Because someone assumes a certain idea does not make it revelation or doctrine. There has been past past leaders who have made that assumption, and there are others who have not. If it was as black and white as you assume, then there wouldn't be a discrepancy. So either you, as an outsider, are correct by only quoting that which supports your case and ignoring the rest, or, you can take all of the evidence into consideration and realize there is no revealed doctrine on the issue.

Again, I have never said it was revealed doctrine.

The Church published the Encyclopedia of Mormonism a few years back and under the entry of Cumorah, it states "“Because the New York site does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Book of Mormon geography, some Latter-day Saints have looked for other possible explanations and locations, including Mesoamerica. Although some have identified possible sites that may seem to fit better (Palmer), there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site that has been suggested.”

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.

This is almost word for word what was written in "1990 an official letter from F. Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency" which reads:

“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 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” Office of the First Presidency, 23 April 1993

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a Mormon standpoint, it's important to make that distinction because we believe in continuing revelation. This implies that there's a whole bunch of stuff that we don't know yet. For instance:

We can use reason and try to build off what we already know to try to fill that gap, but that must be combined with an acknowledgement that some things have simply not been revealed to us and we can only hope for more knowledge and truths to be revealed to us in the future. Thus, until God reveals all truth to us, we're always going to have a combination of doctrine and opinion in our heads and conversations.

Now, you seem so assume I'm picking what I want to believe and what I don't want to believe based on what's convenient, but that is not true at all. Instead, I'm saying that I don't think the precise locations of various Book of Mormon events have been revealed to us by God, and thus I must acknowledge that we as Latter-day Saints simply do not know on a doctrinal level where Book of Mormon events took place.

Fair enough.

Here's where I want to be very clear: I do not think any declaration of archaeology is a pronunciation of doctrine unless such a fact was said to be revealed by God. I'd go deeper into this, but I think the last couple sections of this paper that Jason_J linked to has already explained this line of reasoning well.

I have never said that it was doctrine and completely understand why it is not. That has never been my point.

If you're trying to "rattle" me (or my beliefs, etc.), you aren't doing a very good job of it. ;)

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share