LDS and the bible vs BOM

[lax16]

This is of course, a subjective measurement that is going on in your own head. Since your conclusions don’t match reality, one conclusion could be, the reason for this subjective measurement weighing in favor of Mormonism is so that you are prepared. It is deducing, not mind reading.

But anyway, and whatever! I already know you have a known-only-to-Tom way of measuring things. Which is according to your own conscience, and I don’t seek to infringe on your conscience, forcing something. No.

If you are going to measure things, the Book of Mormon was published by Joseph Smith and claimed to be a historical account of the people of the Americas. Certainly, events related in that historical account can be viewed as allegorical or literal. But the BoM as a whole has always been presented as a historical account. Period.

You provide, what is in your own mind, scientific evidence for this claim. It is not in my estimation, evidence, but correlations. Like washing your car will make it rain. A nice correlation, but meaningless to anyone who isn’t seeking to provide evidence that cars cause rain. But who cares?

It all dodges the point, that the evidence against the BoM being a historical account, is going to force a change in Mormonism to where the book as a whole is not claimed to be a historical account.

You duck and dodge this, by pointing to specific stories that can be viewed as allegory or not. While all the while, providing what you see as evidence for a historical account, when the point is, the BoM itself is going to one day have to be put aside as history and the entire book presented as allegory.

Lehi and his family leaving Jerusalem, not literal, but allegorical. Lamanites and Nephites, not literally existing but allegories. etc.

This will be extremely difficult to reconcile with other Mormon scripture. The difficulty can already be seen, in the D&C, where Joseph sent people to teach the Lamanites. Of course he held the view that all indigenous people, anywhere and everywhere, were descended of Lamanites. But today, would you, a Mormon, agree that the people being taught were actually, literally, Lamanites?

If so, what is your evidence, if not, how do you reconcile the error of your scriptures?

The Catholic Church has always viewed our scripture as both allegory and not. Including the OT. Jesus names Himself, in the NT, both Jacob’s ladder and the temple. These are both figurative and literal, but more importantly is anagogical. If we viewed the OT as only literal, what Jesus said about Himself would be nonsense.

What a Cardinal or Council decrees is not scripture. What is in your D&C, attributed to Smith, is scripture. In my taking measure of the situation, you have an inestimable burden to overcome.

Can you imagine how the Hispanics and Pacific Islanders will feel when/if this ever happens?

 

[Horton]

Hi TOm - are you stating official Mormon teaching when you say the Book of Mormon locations are NOT in upstate New York?

Interested in this answer

 

[Horton]

This is of course, a subjective measurement that is going on in your own head. Since your conclusions don’t match reality, one conclusion could be, the reason for this subjective measurement weighing in favor of Mormonism is so that you are prepared. It is deducing, not mind reading.

But anyway, and whatever! I already know you have a known-only-to-Tom way of measuring things. Which is according to your own conscience, and I don’t seek to infringe on your conscience, forcing something. No.

If you are going to measure things, the Book of Mormon was published by Joseph Smith and claimed to be a historical account of the people of the Americas. Certainly, events related in that historical account can be viewed as allegorical or literal. But the BoM as a whole has always been presented as a historical account. Period.

You provide, what is in your own mind, scientific evidence for this claim. It is not in my estimation, evidence, but correlations. Like washing your car will make it rain. A nice correlation, but meaningless to anyone who isn’t seeking to provide evidence that cars cause rain. But who cares?

It all dodges the point, that the evidence against the BoM being a historical account, is going to force a change in Mormonism to where the book as a whole is not claimed to be a historical account.

You duck and dodge this, by pointing to specific stories that can be viewed as allegory or not. While all the while, providing what you see as evidence for a historical account, when the point is, the BoM itself is going to one day have to be put aside as history and the entire book presented as allegory.

**Lehi and his family leaving Jerusalem, not literal, but allegorical. Lamanites and Nephites, not literally existing but allegories. etc.

This will be extremely difficult to reconcile with other Mormon scripture. The difficulty can already be seen, in the D&C, where Joseph sent people to teach the Lamanites. Of course he held the view that all indigenous people, anywhere and everywhere, were descended of Lamanites. But today, would you, a Mormon, agree that the people being taught were actually, literally, Lamanites?**

If so, what is your evidence, if not, how do you reconcile the error of your scriptures?

The Catholic Church has always viewed our scripture as both allegory and not. Including the OT. Jesus names Himself, in the NT, both Jacob’s ladder and the temple. These are both figurative and literal, but more importantly is anagogical. If we viewed the OT as only literal, what Jesus said about Himself would be nonsense.

What a Cardinal or Council decrees is not scripture. What is in your D&C, attributed to Smith, is scripture. In my taking measure of the situation, you have an inestimable burden to overcome.

Very very interested in this answer

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen168,
You suffer from the same problem one of your favorite authors does. When Fawn Brodie reported what mind reading powers indicated were Joseph Smith’s thoughts and motivations she was criticized by non-LDS authors for her methods.
When you report what your mind reading powers tell you I am thinking you are just as mistaken and for the same reason. You cannot read minds.
If the CoJCoLDS were to declare that the BOM was not historical, it would IMO move the church in a less likely to be true direction. As a result the Catholic Church would in my mind move in a more likely to be true direction.
I am the world authority on my thoughts in case you wondered. But you can state your case further if you like.

Catholics: Mormonism historically reads scripture literally but is now having to change to allegory.

Mormons: Catholicism did too. (No surprise there)

Catholics: Your claim is not based on facts but cherry picking.

Tom: having accepted the facts of Catholic history, now claims Mormonism has a history of being more allegorical than Catholicism.

Rational deduction: Tom is making a false claim about Mormonism to prepare himself for the future change to come.

This is of course, a subjective measurement that is going on in your own head. Since your conclusions don’t match reality, one conclusion could be, the reason for this subjective measurement weighing in favor of Mormonism is so that you are prepared. It is deducing, not mind reading

 

[Telstar]

The Catholic Church has always viewed our scripture as both allegory and not. Including the OT. Jesus names Himself, in the NT, both Jacob’s ladder and the temple. These are both figurative and literal, but more importantly is anagogical. If we viewed the OT as only literal, what Jesus said about Himself would be nonsense.

That is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about in my other post. If Jesus clearly taught the Apostles to use both allegorical and literal interpretations by His own examples, why would anyone think allegorical interpretation was not used, or even considered by the early Church, until the 4th or 5th century? That makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever. Every passage of the Bible can have multiple meanings, either allegorical, literal, or anagogical, that all work together with the rest of scripture to form the beautiful tapestry of the truth that it contains, which is Jesus Christ. It’s not a rigid or static story that should only be read like a textbook, nor was it ever seen that way by the Church.

What a Cardinal or Council decrees is not scripture. What is in your D&C, attributed to Smith, is scripture. In my taking measure of the situation, you have an inestimable burden to overcome.

I think Mormons have a particularly difficult time understanding this concept. The Catholic Church only has one form of Scripture, and that’s the Bible. Canon Law, Ecumenical Councils, the Catechism, and any other writings that define the Catholic Church’s beliefs are never considered to be scripture. Those are all parts of the teachings of the Catholic Church that explain the Faith as it was passed down from Jesus to the Apostles, that are all based on Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition.

But, to a Mormon, almost everything Joseph Smith ever wrote was considered to be scripture (except what’s been disavowed as being just his ‘opinion’). The BoM, the PoGP, and the D&C are all claimed to be Mormon scripture, and, for the most part, were all written by JS. The title page of the 1830 BoM says, “By Joseph Smith, Junior, Author and Proprietor”. So, most of the LDS’s conception of ‘scripture’, comes directly from the pen of Joseph Smith.

 

[Telstar]

And that would be the reason why the ancestry of Native Americans doesn’t really factor into my faith in God.

The BoM, as it was written by JS, was claimed to be the historical record of a band of Jews (the lost tribe of Israel) that left Jerusalem and traveled to the Americas. It is also claimed by him to be the historical record of all Native Americans, which he said were the descendants of those Jewish people. This is why he claimed to be restoring the true ‘church’ of Jesus, because the people in the BoM were supposed to be the ‘lost tribe of Israel’ that Jesus came here to tell that He was the Messiah that they had all been waiting for, in Israel.

So, are you saying that even though the BoM is not what JS claimed it to be, you’re OK with that? You would have to be, if you can say that your faith isn’t based on the Native Americans being descendants of a lost tribe of Israel. And, if it’s not a historical record of Native Americans descended from a tribe of Israel (which they are not as has been proved by DNA testing), then what other claims made by JS might you also have to consider to be false? Can you not see that everything you were taught to believe as a Mormon, is based on what JS wrote in the BoM and the rest of his writings? How can that not have any effect on your faith?

 

[twopekinguys]

As I have mentioned here that the locations of the BOM that have permanence in archeology and thus provide fixed points of reference are well agreed upon. Jerusalem, the Red Sea, Nahom, (and Valley of Lemuel, Bountiful, …) are well documented.
New world locations like Teotihuacan are reasonably postulate IMO, but there are virtually no toponyms from BOM times that are known and the small number that are known cannot be pronounced with any certainty.

The BOM theories that predated DNA evidence if correct led Simon Southerton to say that his DNA evidence does not refute them (but Simon’s position was the LDS CANNOT change these theories even pre-DNA evidence – Catholics changed their geocentric theories after not before science called them into question).

Well, horses are a minor negative and BOA translation IMO is a large negative. Neither demonstrate the falsity of the CoJCoLDS, but neither is on the positive side of the ledger. Cement on the other hand is a positive as science has moved from where it was when this was a criticism to now agreeing that cement was worked in BOM times (Teotihuacan is the place BTW).
Charity ,Tom

Let’s cut to the chase shall we?

Why not excavate the hill in New York, and find definitive proof? Isn’t that supposed to be the place where such a great battle was waged? Imagine the archeological proof it would provide?

Let’s not forget a man by the name of Thomas Ferguson, who, was a very devout mormon, with funding from the mormon church set out on a mission to prove the BoM through archeology. After much time and money, he came up with nothing, and ultimately lost his faith in all of it.

As TexanKnight so proudly (and frequently) used to ask, Where is Zaramelhia (sp)?

Do you have a reference for the supposed change of view regarding cement?

You also know that others have weighed in on the DNA besides Southerton right?

 

[kimg901]

Can you imagine how the Hispanics and Pacific Islanders will feel when/if this ever happens?

I find it insulting as a Latino because I know my history and how it came to be and nowhere had smiths story came into it. My people come from the Spaniards & Aztecs (hence Mexican) and were taught Christianity from the Spaniards!

 

[Horton]

I find it insulting as a Latino because I know my history and how it came to be and nowhere had smiths story came into it. My people come from the Spaniards & Aztecs (hence Mexican) and were taught Christianity from the Spaniards!

 

[kimg901]

I find it insulting as a Latino because I know my history and how it came to be and nowhere had smiths story came into it. My people come from the Spaniards & Aztecs (hence Mexican) and were taught Christianity from the Spaniards!

If I may add to my post that I am an 1/8 Apache Indian and I know that history is a big part of all Native American tribes so for all American Indians to have no record (written or oral) about Jesus being here in America when smith said He was has to say alot. Just food for thought!

 

[Jerusha]

I also have some Native (Midwestern) ancestry, although some lost their heritage through Mormonism.

The kicker is that Six Nations written literature (although some after the fact) right in Joseph Smith’s backyard, contributed to the Book of Mormon.

digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=libraryscience

archive.org/details/codeofhandsomela01hand

gutenberg.org/files/6960/6960-h/6960-h.htm

archive.org/stream/hodenosaunee00morgrich/hodenosaunee00morgrich_djvu.txt

archive.org/details/lifeandtimesred00stongoog

Read through them and look at the parallels for yourself. And one of Ethan Smith’s missionary friends, a Jabez Hyde, was kicked off of the Seneca reservation because of the emotionally and spiritually abusive religion he was teaching. From the Code of Handsome Lake, we can easily see some distinctively Catholic ideas. Remember, the Jesuits hit the ground in that area in 1610, long before the Protestants even thought of teaching Christianity to the Natives. They struggled, and some died, because of Native anger at the diseases they brought to this half of the world. An estimated 90% of the Native population of the Americas died because of those diseases. Many whites rejoiced because the epidemics gave them room for growth. The Jesuits grieved because of the deaths they had inadvertently caused. puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/relations/

 

[lax16]

I find it insulting as a Latino because I know my history and how it came to be and nowhere had smiths story came into it. My people come from the Spaniards & Aztecs (hence Mexican) and were taught Christianity from the Spaniards!

You are very fortunate to know your history, kimg901. There are people who do not know and are being duped into believing they are the BoM people!

 

[RebeccaJ]

You are very fortunate to know your history, kimg901. There are people who do not know and are being duped into believing they are the BoM people!

Back in the 70s, all brown skinned people were Lamanites. My friends from Mexico, my friend from the Rez. All Lamanites, and people would call them that, without question.

When I travelled to southern Mexico, during the 80s several times, it became clearer to me each time that the BoM was way off. I’ve been to several Mayan archaeological sites and museums, and there are plenty of different gods and goddesses, associated practices, art and artifacts, but there is nothing about the Mayan culture that is Christian or Judaism. It is its own culture.

 

[TOmNossor]

Hi TOm - are you stating official Mormon teaching when you say the Book of Mormon locations are NOT in upstate New York?

No. There is no “official” position on where the BOM took place. Since the location of the BOM has virtually nothing to do with how God’s children embrace God’s plan, I do not expect anything.
Today in the church there are folks who embrace the Mesoamerican theories, folks who embrace what has been called “heartland” theories, and at present a minority of folks who view the BOM as inspired fiction.
About 10 years ago, there was a conference at the Library of Congress. On the first day there were presentations by John Clark (top Mesoamerican archeologist and LDS) and Elder Oaks (member of the twelve). Two things.

1. There were no presentations about the heartland model and certainly no “inspired fiction” presentation at this prominent conference attended by 2+ GA.
2. John Clark’s presentation was specifically about archeological problems with the BOM as delineated over many years based on the best understanding of Mesoamerican archeology vs. the smaller number of archeological problems with the BOM that exist today as knowledge of the field of archeology has increased. This is precisely the opposite trend a fictitious book would be expected to demonstrate.

So, first, while there is not and I hope there will never be a “official” position, LDS thinkers GA included IMO lean in a Mesoamerican direction.
Second, I hope for the day when archeology makes the Mesoamerican position not only stronger but much stronger.
Finally, before the second coming of Christ, I do not expect the day to come when the BOM is so clearly inspired of God and miraculous that the informed and rational must embrace it. I find such to be contrary to the pattern of God and revealed religion in general.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

This is of course, a subjective measurement that is going on in your own head. Since your conclusions don’t match reality, one conclusion could be, the reason for this subjective measurement weighing in favor of Mormonism is so that you are prepared. It is deducing, not mind reading.

Actually, before I make any religious decision, any judgment upon what is being said on a message board, any thoughts on the strength or weakness of an argument, …; I connect my wau-o-meter. It provides a number between 1-100 and then I can non-subjectively weight all these issues.
Of course all these things are subjective judgments. If you think your conclusions are different than mine because you have more data or are fairer in your weighing of your data, then I find that to be a very tenuous conclusion.
You may be a greater expert on the Antiochian school than I am (wouldn’t be hard), but so far no one has even suggested they know anything about these debates. I have subjectively weighed the data I have and I think the existence of the Antiochian school indicates that numerous early Catholics held a lot more literal view of scriptures than LDS ever have. The foundational scriptures of the CoJCoLDS indicated that “7 Days” is really “7 periods.” That is pretty solid evidence that allegorical interpretation was part of the LDS tradition in the first decade.
And I am not convinced that the evidence against the BOM (and there is evidence against the BOM) will force the CoJCoLDS to decide that it is not a historical book. Paul Owen, evangelical scholar author of The New Mormon Challenge has recently proposed a number of theories on the genesis of some BOM motifs. He seems to favor a real visionary experience that communicated to Joseph Smith ancient Christian motifs unlikely to be either coincidence or a product of Smith’s research. He then says,

Let me say at this point, just for the record (though I have already expressed similar convictions in print elsewhere), that I do not believe, and never have believed, that Joseph Smith got the narrative of the Book of Mormon (or even 1 Nephi 13-14) or the idea of the golden plates, from reading 2 Esdras. I believe the origin of both the plates and the narrative is found in Joseph’s real visionary encounters with God, and an angel who identified himself with the name Moroni. I don’t believe Joseph made this up, though the iteration of these encounters naturally evolved over the years. I believe any serious grappling with the Book of Mormon which attempts to answer sweeping questions about its origins (which again was not at all the purpose of my article) has to start with Joseph’s evident spiritual experiences and the commission he received to offer a religious alternative to the chaos of Protestant revivalism in the context of the burned-over district in the early 1800’s.

Owen’s coauthor became a Catholic in part in response to the inability to answer the challenge of Mormonism from an evangelical POV. I think both men are moving closer to truth.
Disclaimer - Paul Owen is not a LDS and I do not expect him to be one anytime soon. This is not what I think he is saying.

The dismissal of the BOM as a clearly 19th century production is IMO harder and harder to do as the book is taken seriously by scientists and religious scholars. I have been waiting for about 2 years to see if Michael Coe has any additional thoughts on the BOM after reading Sorenson’s magnum opus. Coe’s previous responses have IMO been solid in their archeology but lacking in their pluming the BOM. I am sure you disagree.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Actually, before I make any religious decision, any judgment upon what is being said on a message board, any thoughts on the strength or weakness of an argument, …; I connect my wau-o-meter. It provides a number between 1-100 and then I can non-subjectively weight all these issues.
Of course all these things are subjective judgments. If you think your conclusions are different than mine because you have more data or are fairer in your weighing of your data, then I find that to be a very tenuous conclusion.
You may be a greater expert on the Antiochian school than I am (wouldn’t be hard), but so far no one has even suggested they know anything about these debates. I have subjectively weighed the data I have and I think the existence of the Antiochian school indicates that numerous early Catholics held a lot more literal view of scriptures than LDS ever have. The foundational scriptures of the CoJCoLDS indicated that “7 Days” is really “7 periods.” That is pretty solid evidence that allegorical interpretation was part of the LDS tradition in the first decade.
And I am not convinced that the evidence against the BOM (and there is evidence against the BOM) will force the CoJCoLDS to decide that it is not a historical book. Paul Owen, evangelical scholar author of The New Mormon Challenge has recently proposed a number of theories on the genesis of some BOM motifs. He seems to favor a real visionary experience that communicated to Joseph Smith ancient Christian motifs unlikely to be either coincidence or a product of Smith’s research. He then says,

Owen’s coauthor became a Catholic in part in response to the inability to answer the challenge of Mormonism from an evangelical POV. I think both men are moving closer to truth.
Disclaimer - Paul Owen is not a LDS and I do not expect him to be one anytime soon. This is not what I think he is saying.

The dismissal of the BOM as a clearly 19th century production is IMO harder and harder to do as the book is taken seriously by scientists and religious scholars. I have been waiting for about 2 years to see if Michael Coe has any additional thoughts on the BOM after reading Sorenson’s magnum opus. Coe’s previous responses have IMO been solid in their archeology but lacking in their pluming the BOM. I am sure you disagree.
Charity, TOm

You’ve worked out what you’ve worked out.

I’ve never seen one, single, non-LDS scientist or scholar even consider the BoM claims to be anything but a religious/faith claim. The book is always, to me, a fan fiction. Even when I was LDS, it always came across to me as fiction. The Moroni challenge, I took, with hopes of “getting it”. That didn’t work. I have no idea how anyone can read it as though it is what it claims to be. May as well ask me to view the latest top ten books as scripture. (I don’t.)

 

[Stephen168]

Actually, before I make any religious decision, any judgment upon what is being said on a message board, any thoughts on the strength or weakness of an argument, …; I connect my wau-o-meter. It provides a number between 1-100 and then I can non-subjectively weight all these issues.
Of course all these things are subjective judgments. If you think your conclusions are different than mine because you have more data or are fairer in your weighing of your data, then I find that to be a very tenuous conclusion.
You may be a greater expert on the Antiochian school than I am (wouldn’t be hard), but so far no one has even suggested they know anything about these debates. I have subjectively weighed the data I have and I think the existence of the Antiochian school indicates that numerous early Catholics held a lot more literal view of scriptures than LDS ever have. The foundational scriptures of the CoJCoLDS indicated that “7 Days” is really “7 periods.” That is pretty solid evidence that allegorical interpretation was part of the LDS tradition in the first decade.
And I am not convinced that the evidence against the BOM (and there is evidence against the BOM) will force the CoJCoLDS to decide that it is not a historical book. Paul Owen, evangelical scholar author of The New Mormon Challenge has recently proposed a number of theories on the genesis of some BOM motifs. He seems to favor a real visionary experience that communicated to Joseph Smith ancient Christian motifs unlikely to be either coincidence or a product of Smith’s research. He then says,

Owen’s coauthor became a Catholic in part in response to the inability to answer the challenge of Mormonism from an evangelical POV. I think both men are moving closer to truth.
Disclaimer - Paul Owen is not a LDS and I do not expect him to be one anytime soon. This is not what I think he is saying.

The dismissal of the BOM as a clearly 19th century production is IMO harder and harder to do as the book is taken seriously by scientists and religious scholars. I have been waiting for about 2 years to see if Michael Coe has any additional thoughts on the BOM after reading Sorenson’s magnum opus. Coe’s previous responses have IMO been solid in their archeology but lacking in their pluming the BOM. I am sure you disagree.

The first Mormons believed the great apostasy took place in 570AD because the twelfth chapter of Revelation as “revealed” by Joseph Smith said the woman wondered in the wilderness for 1260 years. The actual verse from Revelations says the woman will wonder for 1260 DAYS. Some Protestants thought ‘days’ to be allegorical and came to the same conclusion. Mormons insisting on a literal read, required Joseph Smith to actually changed days to years.

Michael Coe is receptive to Mormon archeological finds. He does not dismiss Mormons just because they might think the Book of Mormon is history. But he, like every non-Mormon scientist, believes the BoM to be fiction.

Scientists are not taking the BoM seriously at all now or ever as history.
While allegory is new to Mormonism, you will be seeing more of it in regard to the BoM.

 

[lax16]

No. There is no “official” position on where the BOM took place. Since the location of the BOM has virtually nothing to do with how God’s children embrace God’s plan, I do not expect anything.
Today in the church there are folks who embrace the Mesoamerican theories, folks who embrace what has been called “heartland” theories, and at present a minority of folks who view the BOM as inspired fiction.

So, first, while there is not and I hope there will never be a “official” position, LDS thinkers GA included IMO lean in a Mesoamerican direction.
Second, I hope for the day when archeology makes the Mesoamerican position not only stronger but much stronger.
Finally, before the second coming of Christ, I do not expect the day to come when the BOM is so clearly inspired of God and miraculous that the informed and rational must embrace it. I find such to be contrary to the pattern of God and revealed religion in general.
Charity, TOm

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Office of the First Presidency Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

October 16, 1990

Bishop Darrel L. Brooks

Moore Ward

Oklahoma City Oklahoma South Stake

1000 Windemere Moore, OK 73160

Dear Bishop Brooks:

I have been asked to forward to you for acknowledgment and handling the enclosed copy of a letter to President Gordon B. Hinckley from Ronnie Sparks of your ward. Brother Sparks inquired about the location of the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon, where the last battle between the Nephites and Lamanites took place.

The Church has long maintained, as attested to by 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.

The Brethren appreciate your assistance in responding to this inquiry, and asked that you convey to Brother Sparks their commendation for his gospel study.

Sincerely yours,

(signed)

F. Michael Watson

Secretary to the First Presidency

[Original copy here: Watson Letter]

 

[Miriam1947]

I sometimes watch BYU TV. And they have on there people who actually seem to believe in the book of Mormon Nephi Alma all of those other things that were just made up in Joseph Smith’s mind.

Perhaps if he hadn’t died when he did the Mormon religion would’ve gone the way of David koresch.

It truly amazes me that people actually believe it.

 

[XuDan]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Office of the First Presidency Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

October 16, 1990

Bishop Darrel L. Brooks

Moore Ward

Oklahoma City Oklahoma South Stake

1000 Windemere Moore, OK 73160

Dear Bishop Brooks:

I have been asked to forward to you for acknowledgment and handling the enclosed copy of a letter to President Gordon B. Hinckley from Ronnie Sparks of your ward. Brother Sparks inquired about the location of the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon, where the last battle between the Nephites and Lamanites took place.

The Church has long maintained, as attested to by 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.

The Brethren appreciate your assistance in responding to this inquiry, and asked that you convey to Brother Sparks their commendation for his gospel study.

Sincerely yours,

(signed)

F. Michael Watson

Secretary to the First Presidency

[Original copy here: Watson Letter]

I mean that’s all well and good, but it means nothing. Remember that the LDS can pick and choose cafeteria style from what past presidents have said. It’s an official teaching so long as they like it and it feels good, if not, then it was “just an opinion of an imperfect man” or in this case since it was a letter sent on behalf of the President it will be argued that it isn’t official because it didn’t "come from the hand (or mouth) of the prophet acting as the prophet"but instead it was the secretary to the first presidency.

As has been made clear in this thread(and many others) that you can present all the evidence you want to refute the claims made by LDS and it is either outright ignored (and left undressed), dismissed as misunderstood without providing citations, the definition of terms are disputed even in the face of the dictionary evidence to the contrary, tu quoque fallacies are presented, and/or the all powerful obfuscation of official teachings via denial as illustrated in my first paragraph.

So I hope you don’t expect LDS, who don’t accept their own journal of discourse as official teachings (despite it being used to write their lesson manuals and extensively quoted in official talks and publications), to accept a letter from the first presidency to mean anything if it contradicts a position that is designed to make their image more appealing to the public (not to mention their proselytization efforts, which is really one in the same).