LDS and the bible vs BOM

[XuDan]

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.

I look at the LDS Church much as I do Scientology. Joseph Smith, much like L. Ron Hubbard, created a profitable religion based on works of fiction. Evidence of plagiarism surround both men.

 

[lax16]

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).

I know you are right, I have been discussing this topic with Mormons for several years here on CAF.

But, doesn’t this line mean anything:

*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.
*

TOm did say that the LDS church has** never** held a position on the location of the BoM and that is obviously incorrect.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I’ll just go ahead and preempt the typical LDS response to that letter, which is that it was written by the secretary of the First Presidency, not the First Presidency itself, and he was merely giving his opinion.

 

[Marie5890]

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.

So no golden plates? Written by Moroni?

 

[XuDan]

I know you are right, I have been discussing this topic with Mormons for several years here on CAF.

But, doesn’t this line mean anything:

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.

TOm did say that the LDS church has** never** held a position on the location of the BoM and that is obviously incorrect.

Of course it means something, to everyone outside of the LDS church, because integrity of teaching and dogma is expected. But to the LDS, where arbitrary redefinition is common place, integrity of teaching and dogma means something else entirely. Some LDS will see through it, and leave or become “inactive.” Others will Stay because they fear the social and/or professional ostrisism that is weaponized and levied against those who leave. However to most, the best you’ll get is cognitive dissidence. I mean just look at the Millerites, in the face of failed “prophecy” they redoubled their proselytization efforts. The same is true of most LDS, when their beliefs and “chapel teachings” are proven to be inconsistent with the history of the church or biblical scripture. For these people belief is more important than truth.

 

[XuDan]

I’ll just go ahead and preempt the typical LDS response to that letter, which is that it was written by the secretary of the First Presidency, not the First Presidency itself, and he was merely giving his opinion.

Exactly.

In fact I’m pretty sure that the “Standard Mormon Response” to such things could be expressed in a mathematical equation.

 

[TOmNossor]

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]

Lax,
Your “original copy” link? Didn’t work. I was going to follow it.
When you asked me, did you have this document in mind? Why didn’t you share it rather than ask as you did then I could have responded to the document?
Were you aware before posting this that within 3 years there was a correction to this from Bro Watson stating that the church has no position on the Hill Cumorah location (the Hill mentioned as a battle place in the BOM that is)?
IMO that is an important point.
In my answer I was recalling 1-2 statements where GA said that God had not revealed such things for whatever reason. I am fairly sure I had seen Bro Watson’s letter before, but I didn’t try to anticipate what might be coming. I am a poor apologist and I have been told that I regularly “embarrass myself” here.
I find the evidence for the Old World journey of Lehi not only compelling, but best explained supernaturally not naturally (despite the efforts of critics, who also find the evidence compelling, to put books/maps in the hands of Joseph). However, while compelling and important to me, I doubt it cracks God top 100 concerns.
Let me say this. I find the New York Hill Cumorah theory almost untenable. I find young earth creationism almost untenable. I find geocentrism almost untenable. But I will gladly worship with folks who believe these things, folks Miriam is “truly amazed” by (and I think it is her engagement of these questions at Catholic Answers that allows such a dismissive view to seem not only true but worthy of being said about me and my coreligionists). I will gladly call folks with simple testimonies my brothers and sisters. Many of them are spiritual giants relative to me. You can have your “history proves” it to be true, I will not agree because I have yet to find the history Catholic Answers shares concerning my church and concerning Catholicism to present the whole picture. But, I am quite committed to the simple way of knowing LDS invite all to pursue. Ask of God! I am after a church lead by God not a church celebrated by Michael Coe (an atheist with a superficial knowledge of the BOM).
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

So no golden plates? Written by Moroni?

No, I expect if Paul Owen decided that the BOM was not only best explained by actually divine visionary experiences of Joseph Smith, but also that those visionary experiences involved Moroni and gold plate; he would be a LDS.
I offer Paul Owen because unlike you he does not say he is “truly amazed” LDS can believe what LDS believe. This might be explained by a reluctance to be so denigrating of a few million people trying their best to walk with God, but I prefer to believe it is because he has engaged these questions seriously for a couple decades. He doesn’t get his understanding of the CoJCoLDS from Catholic Answers, but from the best the CoJCoLDS has to offer. He doesn’t have a testimony, but he is not near so dismissive.
Here is his essay from many years ago:
Mormon Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and not Knowing it.
Charity, TOm

 

[lax16]

Lax,
Your “original copy” link? Didn’t work. I was going to follow it.
When you asked me, did you have this document in mind? Why didn’t you share it rather than ask as you did then I could have responded to the document?

I didn’t post a link. I was posting from an ipad and had trouble with that.

Were you aware before posting this that within 3 years there was a correction to this from Bro Watson stating that the church has no position on the Hill Cumorah location (the Hill mentioned as a battle place in the BOM that is)?

No, I have never heard of that or seen that correction. Would you please provide the correction?
(btw 3 years is a long time!)

IMO that is an important point.

Not to me. If I was Mormon my head would be spinning.

In my answer I was recalling 1-2 statements where GA said that God had not revealed such things for whatever reason. I am fairly sure I had seen Bro Watson’s letter before, but I didn’t try to anticipate what might be coming. I am a poor apologist and I have been told that I regularly “embarrass myself” here.

Not at all, TOm, I enjoy discussing things with you. I don’t think this is some sort of a game but I would assume you honestly do not think the LDS church has EVER had an official position on the location of the BoM.

They have. They have now backed away from it.

I find the evidence for the Old World journey of Lehi not only compelling, but best explained supernaturally not naturally (despite the efforts of critics, who also find the evidence compelling, to put books/maps in the hands of Joseph). However, while compelling and important to me, I doubt it cracks God top 100 concerns.
Let me say this. I find the New York Hill Cumorah theory almost untenable. I find young earth creationism almost untenable. I find geocentrism almost untenable. But I will gladly worship with folks who believe these things, folks Miriam is “truly amazed” by (and I think it is her engagement of these questions at Catholic Answers that allows such a dismissive view to seem not only true but worthy of being said about me and my coreligionists). I will gladly call folks with simple testimonies my brothers and sisters. Many of them are spiritual giants relative to me. You can have your “history proves” it to be true, I will not agree because I have yet to find the history Catholic Answers shares concerning my church and concerning Catholicism to present the whole picture. But, I am quite committed to the simple way of knowing LDS invite all to pursue. Ask of God! I am after a church lead by God not a church celebrated by Michael Coe (an atheist with a superficial knowledge of the BOM).
Charity, TOm

I honestly don’t know what to say here other then your church has numerous quotes from church leaders stating that the BoM absolutely, without a doubt, happened in New York. There is even a pageant held there annually to celebrate it.

 

[lax16]

Here is a link, TOm. You will need to scroll down some to see the actual letter.

utlm.org/onlineresources/cumorah.htm

 

[lax16]

I’ll just go ahead and preempt the typical LDS response to that letter, which is that it was written by the secretary of the First Presidency, not the First Presidency itself, and he was merely giving his opinion.

Who was speaking for the church…on church letter head…

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.

He is right. The church has long maintained this position and GAs have written about it.

 

[XuDan]

Who was speaking for the church…on church letter head…

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.

He is right. The church has long maintained this position and GAs have written about it.

But because it’s not in “Scripture” they will argue that it’s not “official teaching.” You’d be hard pressed to find any LDS that would accept anything less than an signed declaration by the first presidency, an addition to D&C, or a letter or words from the President himself stating that it was the official church position (and even then they would debate it once he was no longer the president) as an official teaching. They will argue that maintaining a position does not equate to official teaching on the matter (because the words official teaching are absent or not explicit in the indication of official vs unofficial). Such ambiguity is intentional as it allows them to move the goal posts every-time their position is refuted.

 

[lax16]

But because it’s not in “Scripture” they will argue that it’s not “official teaching.” You’d be hard pressed to find any LDS that would accept anything less than an signed declaration by the first presidency, an addition to D&C, or a letter or words from the President himself stating that it was the official church position (and even then they would debate it once he was no longer the president) as an official teaching. They will argue that maintaining a position does not equate to official teaching on the matter (because the words official teaching are absent or not explicit in the indication of official vs unofficial). Such ambiguity is intentional as it allows them to move the goal posts every-time their position is refuted.

Yes, XuDan, you are right. You have tremendous insight.

But for me, and the non-Mormons I talk to about Mormonism, it is enough to keep us from thinking that Mormons possess the truth. These are the points that we keep bringing up so they don’t get buried or lost.

When you are on the outside looking in, it is glaringly obvious that Mormons do move the goal posts. Even my nine year old gets it.

 

[dcana]

But because it’s not in “Scripture” they will argue that it’s not “official teaching.” You’d be hard pressed to find any LDS that would accept anything less than an signed declaration by the first presidency, an addition to D&C, or a letter or words from the President himself stating that it was the official church position (and even then they would debate it once he was no longer the president) as an official teaching. They will argue that maintaining a position does not equate to official teaching on the matter (because the words official teaching are absent or not explicit in the indication of official vs unofficial). Such ambiguity is intentional as it allows them to move the goal posts every-time their position is refuted.

It seems to me this letter is not a “teaching” at all, but simply a statement of somebody who I would think would be familiar with such things that the LDS 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.” It’s a question of LDS Church history. As someone unfamiliar with LDS Church history, I have no idea if it’s true or not. I’d have to defer to F. Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency. Is he wrong in making this statement that there have been many references to this “in the writings of the General Authorities”?

 

[zaffiroborant]

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.

Jerusalem and the Red Sea yes, the others not well agreed upon.

 

[JaminB123]

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.

TOm,

No. Just no. The BOM is not being taken seriously by scientists and religious scholars, any more than it is taken seriously by nearly every non-Mormon archeologist and historian. I know this is going to sounds rude, but the BOM, the Book of Abraham, etc. are academic jokes outside of LDS circles. Neither orthodox Christians nor academics see any credibility in the “translations” of “reformed Egyptian” and so forth as produced by Joseph Smith. It’s unfortunate that the LDS faithful are being taught otherwise; maybe there’s some groupthink going on in the church that’s leading Mormons to these conclusions…

 

[dcana]

So if Joseph Smith claimed to be the “mouthpiece of God” and to have had direct revelations from an angel, and the assertions in the resulting “heaven-sent” BoM have been shown to be historically and archaeologically false, why is that not a problem for many Mormons? Does God lie? Does that not call into question Joseph Smith’s entire credibility and the truth of his claims that he was visited by an angel and was the one chosen by God to restore the “true Church?” If not, why not?

Don’t these words apply, in a sense?:
“‘But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ And if you say in your heart, `How may we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’ --* when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the LORD has not spoken*; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.” - Dt 18

Plus it’s just common sense. What am I missing?

One observation and one question:

1. If the BoM was translated from some supposed golden plates, there must have been a lot of them!
2. Why didn’t the angel just tell him his revelations in English? Joseph Smith was an American who spoke English. Why bother with writing the revelations on gold plates that had to be translated into English, just to be (rather *conveniently, *let us say) taken back into heaven? IMO, it was to lend an aura of mystery and mysticism to the whole business, fit well with the sort of things that were interesting 19th-century Americans at the time, and was an attempt by Joseph Smith to portray himself as a “new Moses.” But that’s just my opinion.

 

[XuDan]

It seems to me this letter is not a “teaching” at all, but simply a statement of somebody who I would think would be familiar with such things that the LDS 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.” It’s a question of LDS Church history. As someone unfamiliar with LDS Church history, I have no idea if it’s true or not. I’d have to defer to F. Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency. Is he wrong in making this statement that there have been many references to this “in the writings of the General Authorities”?

If you read the article the letter is found in you’ll not that while it may or may not be a teaching (we don’t have the original letter that this one is responding to for context), this letter is not the only evidence.

The following was written by LDS Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth president of the LDS Church:

EARLY BRETHREN LOCATE CUMORAH IN WESTERN NEW YORK. It must be conceded that this description fits perfectly the land of Cumorah in New York, as it has been known since the visitation of Moroni to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for the hill is in the proximity of the Great Lakes and also in the land of many rivers and fountains. Moreover, the Prophet Joseph Smith himself is on record, definitely declaring the present hill called Cumorah to be the exact hill spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

Further, the fact that all of his associates from the beginning down have spoken of it as the identical hill where Mormon and Moroni hid the records, must carry some weight. It is difficult for a reasonable person to believe that such men as Oliver Cowdery. Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, David Whitmer, and many others, could speak frequently of the Spot where the Prophet Joseph Smith obtained the plates as the Hill Cumorah, and not be corrected by the Prophet, if that were not the fact. That they did speak of this hill in the days of the Prophet in this definite manner is an established record of history…

NEPHITE AND JAREDITE WARS IN WESTERN NEW YORK. In the face of this evidence coming from the Prophet Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer, we cannot say that the Nephites and Lamanites did not possess the territory of the United States and that the Hill Cumorah is in Central America. Neither can we say that the great struggle which resulted in the destruction of the Nephites took place in Central America. If Zelph, a righteous man, was fighting under a great prophet-general in the last battles between the Nephites and Lamanites; if that great prophet-general was known from the Rocky Mountains to ‘the Hill Cumorah or eastern sea,’ then some of those battles, and evidently the final battles did take place within the borders of what is now the United States… (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3, Bookcraft, 1956, p.232-43.)

The above is a part of the whole quote, but the most relevant, refer to the original in the link below for the full quote.

LDS Apostle James E. Talmage, in Articles of Faith, chapter 14, wrote that the Hill Cumorah is in New York.
LDS Apostle LeGrand Richards, in A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, chapter 7, stated that Cumorah is in New York.
LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, in Mormon Doctrine, under Cumorah, reported that it is in New York.

The letter then follows the above quote. The letter affirms that the above teachings are in fact regarded as the assertion maintained by the LDS church. Again, see the following link for full context.
utlm.org/onlineresources/cumorah.htmThese three books, are standards in the LDS library. They are often quoted by teachers in their lesson plans, and by members who give talks from the pulpit. I have heard GAs quote from and refer to them during general conferences. They are not just some book that some “average mormon” wrote. These books are often recommended to new members to help indoctrinate them with proper LDS teachings. Which is why most people consider them to be accurate in their transmission of the LDS Church’s position.

That said, it is now claimed that three years after the issuance of this letter another was issued correcting it. This second letter has yet to be produced, so until it is, the validity of this claim is unverifiable. However even if the second letter denies that the LDS church has long maintained that the hill is in NY (and thus the BoM set in NY) then it must be reconciled against a long standing tradition of “apostles,” and “prophets” teaching that it is.

 

[dcana]

Speaking of a “New Moses”, that position is already filled, and there shall be no other. He is Jesus Christ, God Himself, God’s Eternal Word. There’s no “revelation” and no other gospel (aka “good news”) that can possibly be given after Him. He is the Gospel. Jesus has made the new and eternal covenant (aka “testament”) with us in His own Blood by His sacrifice on the Cross. There can be no other. All the Law and the Prophets pointed to Him. They did not point to anyone after Him: 1. It is not possible, 2. There is no need.

God through Moses had this to say about Him:

“The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren – him you shall heed – just as you desired of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, or see this great fire any more, lest I die.' And the LORD said to me, They have rightly said all that they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.” - Dt 18

 

[dcana]

If you read the article the letter is found in you’ll not that while it may or may not be a teaching (we don’t have the original letter that this one is responding to for context), this letter is not the only evidence.

The above is a part of the whole quote, but the most relevant, refer to the original in the link below for the full quote.

The letter then follows the above quote. The letter affirms that the above teachings are in fact regarded as the assertion maintained by the LDS church. Again, see the following link for full context.
utlm.org/onlineresources/cumorah.htmThese three books, are standards in the LDS library. They are often quoted by teachers in their lesson plans, and by members who give talks from the pulpit. I have heard GAs quote from and refer to them during general conferences. They are not just some book that some “average mormon” wrote. These books are often recommended to new members to help indoctrinate them with proper LDS teachings. Which is why most people consider them to be accurate in their transmission of the LDS Church’s position.

That said, it is now claimed that three years after the issuance of this letter another was issued correcting it. This second letter has yet to be produced, so until it is, the validity of this claim is unverifiable. However even if the second letter denies that the LDS church has long maintained that the hill is in NY (and thus the BoM set in NY) then it must be reconciled against a long standing tradition of “apostles,” and “prophets” teaching that it is.

Thank you XuDan for all the information.