Nephites lived here in the US?!?! Possibly!

[Snow]

The church officially hasn't, but Joseph, Oliver, Heber, and others made prophecies, and had revelations that it was. I cut and pasted a little of what they have said.

Has the Church sanctioned any of the revelation as true and inspired?

[tiancum]

Has the Church sanctioned any of the revelation as true and inspired?

Joseph Fielding said so...

but just out of curiosity...

does the church need to make an "official statement" about every single thing Joseph prophesied for it to be true? They say he was a prophet. "officially"... that pretty much says his revelations are true.

Can you name a revelation that he received that is not approved?

[Teancum18]

Can you name a revelation that he received that is not approved?

Only the ones people take out of context and misquote...

[Hemidakota]

There are times when a prophet is not speaking for the Lord...we just need the spirit to inform us when it is so.

As with another thread, I think it is one of Tom's ones that dealt with Adam's Dust, when someone try using a quote that was taken completely out content. I know that President Kimball would be be annoyed when the Saints would do this.

[Vanhin]

Well, I would definetly go with what is in the Standard Works. The revelations there are considered official doctrine of the Church. Anything outside of the scriptures, are not to be considered as binding on the Church or it's members. That doesn't mean they are necessarily not true either, but they are not binding. Some are even not true. Even the prophets are only human after all. That's why there is a process where something becomes doctrine, and therefore canonized. Here's part of a statement the Church has made on the matter. I will link the entire article as well:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. (LDS Newsroom - Approaching Mormon Doctrine)

Regards,

Vanhin

[tiancum]

I totally agree. We are not to take all the Ga's say as doctrine.

When they receive revelation is a little bit different situation though isn't it? If the revelations they received aren't real, then... Well, i can see the problem this creates that Joseph Fielding mentioned.

All I am saying is that MANY of them received many documented revelations about BoM locations. I don't believe Revelation can "sometimes" be true from a prophet of God. If one of the Apostles receives a revelation, and the prophet says its correct, and I choose not to believe it, don't i stand on shaky ground?

These are hard pills to swallow, I know. I have believed many things strongly, but when I saw what the Ga's have said about it, i saw that it was time for me to change my opinion.

[Hemidakota]

You would be on shaky ground...neither a prophet or today's Apostle would lead you astray....they know the heavy penalty if they do.

[Vanhin]

Tiancum,

Well, I would say we stand on shaky ground if we don't follow the living prophet. The early brethren, Brigham Young, for example, would often deliver his sermons by prefacing his statements with something like "Thus saith the Lord...", and though he along with the rest of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve had the right to canonize his statements, and bring them to a sustaining vote in General Conference, it's significant that they did not. I love the way Bruce R. McConckie put it concerning the lifting of the priesthood ban. I'm sure you've read it before.

There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles. (Horne, Dennis B. (2000). Bruce R. McConkie: Highlights From His Life & Teachings.)

Some of the statements made by early leaders sounded like they were based on revelations. If they were indeed revelations, meant to be binding (in other words something we should pay heed to), they would have endured the process of canonization, like the lifting of the priesthood ban. I'm just saying. :)

At the same time, we have actual revelations from the Lord, that are not binding on the Church at this time. There are revelations to Lorenzo Snow and Wilford Woodruff that are not in the Doctrine and Covenants, for example (yet anyway).

But, they sure are interesting to read and to ponder nonetheless, and I guess in a debate about Book of Mormon locations, they do carry some weight in supporting one view over another. :)

Regards,

Vanhin

[tiancum]

The only thing I do not totally agree with is that it has to be canonized in order for it to be binding.

Other than that, I am with ya'll 100%. Also, i believe a living prophet trumps an anterior prophet. So if P. Monson told us that the lord told him ALL the BoM took place in Alaska, then I would tend to believe him.

[Hemidakota]

Concur....

I would also add, when you read where the Mulekites found the Hill of the last battle of the people of Jared and the plates by Ether, they also found oversize breastplates and so forth.

Noting the Indian mounds among the North Americas, do a Goggle search and see how large these people were. My friend told a story of a finding among a sacred caves, Southern Mexico, [had one entrance and seven smaller inside cave tunnels], a double size femur bone of a male. Makes you wonder the size of the people of Adam to the Tower of Babel.