Tell me what you think of this chapter in the Book of Mormon

[ParkerD]

Why is it that not a single remain of these BoM people have ever been unearthed? Nor evidence any of those battles took place? Not even a coin have been dug up.

I suppose that you realize that new discoveries of “battlefield sites” or “burial sites” or artifacts, including cases of artifacts within a layer of soil where there were artifacts above that layer of soil also but a discovery is made that there were other artifacts of other groups below the higher layer of soil, are being found each decade within the Americas. None of those will have a label on them saying what group was involved in the battles that took place, or the sudden disappearance of the group.

 

[LongJourney]

What did you say, Parker? I didn’t hear you. I’m not yet wearing my hearing aids this morning. If you said anything significant, I’m sure someone will relay it to me.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Yankee Drifter,

I disagree with your understanding of the passage in Deuteronomy, but in answer about Joseph Smith and prophecy, my answer is that he never made false prophecies, and I have been able to explain whenever anyone has tried to demonstrate otherwise through whatever source they come up with.

“When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him”
(Deut. 18:22). This passage is crystal clear that no interpretation is necessary when we allow God to speak for Himself. The reason we need not be afraid of such prophets is because they are self-appointed and thus false prophets.

Smith did indeed make some false prophecies. Some of which caused him to lamely exclaim that some prophecies come from man himself or even satan.

 

[ParkerD]

Put, Parker, this fiction says that all this death and destruction was the Mormon god’s doing BECAUSE they refused to convert to Alma’s religion. And why were the Ammonites deprived of the right of self-defense??

The destruction of Ammonihah City was presented as the Mormon god’s “justice”.

LJ,
No, the book does not say that, nor does it ever imply that anyone was “deprived of the right of self-defense”, nor does it say the destruction was God’s “justice”. It does say the wicked destroy the wicked several times in the Book of Mormon, and shows that Isaiah taught that same principle.

However, in a general sense, here is a passage about what sometimes has happened to the righteous living at certain times on the earth (though I’m not worried about this at all in our present day):

Alma 60: 13
13 For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain that his justice and judgment may come upon the wicked; therefore ye need not suppose that the righteous are lost because they are slain; but behold, they do enter into the rest of the Lord their God.

 

[yankee_drifter]

I suppose that you realize that new discoveries of “battlefield sites” or “burial sites” or artifacts, including cases of artifacts within a layer of soil where there were artifacts above that layer of soil also but a discovery is made that there were other artifacts of other groups below the higher layer of soil, are being found each decade within the Americas. None of those will have a label on them saying what group was involved in the battles that took place, or the sudden disappearance of the group.

I’m not even going to address any of that. It shows nothing really. The fact is, your early leaders taught that the Hill Cumorah was in upstate New York. If you ask the missionaries at the visitor’s center in Palmyra, NY, they will tell you that yes, the Hill Cumorah is located there, the very hill mentioned in the BoM. This has been proven false. Now the mormon church is trying to find something in Central America. That’s a very long distance from the USA.

 

[ParkerD]

“When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him”
(Deut. 18:22). This passage is crystal clear that no interpretation is necessary when we allow God to speak for Himself. The reason we need not be afraid of such prophets is because they are self-appointed and thus false prophets.

Yankee Drifter,
I suppose that you realize that Deuteronomy 18:15-19 is a prophecy about the mission of Jesus Christ to the earth as the Prophet whom the Lord was going to raise up.

But as far as Deuteronomy 18:21-22, all it says is “thou shalt not be afraid of him” and that “the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously” nor does that meaning necessarily mean they are “self-appointed” or a “false prophet”. Jonah was a prophet who prophesied something that didn’t happen, and he wasn’t “self-appointed” nor was he a “false prophet” (certainly a reluctant one), but he did get perturbed when the event he prophesied didn’t happen (the destruction of Nineveh).

 

[ParkerD]

I’m not even going to address any of that. It shows nothing really. The fact is, your early leaders taught that the Hill Cumorah was in upstate New York. If you ask the missionaries at the visitor’s center in Palmyra, NY, they will tell you that yes, the Hill Cumorah is located there, the very hill mentioned in the BoM. This has been proven false. Now the mormon church is trying to find something in Central America. That’s a very long distance from the USA.

Yankee Drifter,

If you do some reading about the many, many tribal groups of the ancient Americas, you will find that there was widespread commerce among them hundreds and even thousands of miles apart. They traveled extensively, and their commerce was not in one single location.

 

[LongJourney]

We have NO evidence of any Caucasoid people in the Americas before Columbus, except very minimal and questionable evidence long before the Mormon claims for the BoM, and the colonies on Greenland. Period. End. Fiction. No more discussion. All Asian in origin.

Of course there were wars. That is human nature. Clavigero documented that.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
It wasn’t hard to figure out that you not only would not be able to do that, but that your only basis for your statements about “bad spiritual odor” or “feeling sick” is a subjective response to an unfamiliar piece of writing (meaning yours alone, without actually reading the book or considering its messages through first-hand experience).

No Parker, it is your avoidance of the obvious that makes me throw my hands up. What did you expect me to do, jump at your command and come back with a comparitive analysis between the BoM and Sacred Scripture in a few moments? The entire premise of the BoM is false to begin with, IMO, so why would I want to spend my time studying something of that nature just becasue you believe it? As for my “subjective response”, I am under no obligation to read materials that I know are heretical and fictional and lend no benefit to my spiritual life.

But, just for you Parker, I will acquire another copy of this book (I pitched the last copy I had in the trash after experiencing the darkness I described before) and try to look at it from a purely scholarly viewpoint. When I have had time to digest some of it I will comment. Fair enough?

 

[ParkerD]

But, just for you Parker, I will acquire another copy of this book (I pitched the last copy I had in the trash after experiencing the darkness I described before) and try to look at it from a purely scholarly viewpoint. When I have had time to digest some of it I will comment. Fair enough?

SteveVH,
Fair enough, but only if that is your choice. (I wasn’t trying to make you feel obligated. I was responding to the words you used that were very specific in describing the book, which would seem to mean the person using those words ought to make themselves familiar with what they are making categorical judgments about when using such words.)

Again, SteveVH, it would be your choice to make. The Book of Mormon can be easily found and read on the internet, although reading a copy in hand may be easier to mark and so forth. The one linked on lds.org (Gospel Library–scriptures) is the one that would be also easy to use for its cross-referencing capability into the King James Bible.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Yankee Drifter,
I suppose that you realize that Deuteronomy 18:15-19 is a prophecy about the mission of Jesus Christ to the earth as the Prophet whom the Lord was going to raise up.

But as far as Deuteronomy 18:21-22, all it says is “thou shalt not be afraid of him” and that “the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously” nor does that meaning necessarily mean they are “self-appointed” or a “false prophet”. Jonah was a prophet who prophesied something that didn’t happen, and he wasn’t “self-appointed” nor was he a “false prophet” (certainly a reluctant one), but he did get perturbed when the event he prophesied didn’t happen (the destruction of Nineveh).

Parker, every mormon gives the same exact response when they are confronted with the accusation that Joseph Smith was a false prophet. They always say: Look at Jonah! This argument is so old.

First of all, Jonah did not make a mistake; he said exactly what God told him to say (Jonah 3:1). Second, Jonah’s prophecy was not in error, because implied in the prophecy was a condition under which the predicted judgment would not take place. The Ninevites clearly understood what Jonah meant, that their city would be overthrown unless they repented (Jonah 3:5-9).

Nice try Parker, but deflecting the real issue never works. Smith made some false prophecies and I would be happy to discuss this.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, every mormon gives the same exact response when they are confronted with the accusation that Joseph Smith was a false prophet. They always say: Look at Jonah! This argument is so old.

First of all, Jonah did not make a mistake; he said exactly what God told him to say (Jonah 3:1). Second, Jonah’s prophecy was not in error, because implied in the prophecy was a condition under which the predicted judgment would not take place. The Ninevites clearly understood what Jonah meant, that their city would be overthrown unless they repented (Jonah 3:5-9).

Nice try Parker, but deflecting the real issue never works. Smith made some false prophecies and I would be happy to discuss this.

Yankee Drifter,

I would be happy to discuss whatever it is you have in mind with you, particularly under the same premise you have presented here–which is that the people who were listening “clearly understood what [Joseph Smith] meant”, and that there were conditions “implied in the prophecy.”

Those implications and premises are precisely the groundwork that are needed, so thank you for bringing them up.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
Fair enough, but only if that is your choice. (I wasn’t trying to make you feel obligated. I was responding to the words you used that were very specific in describing the book, which would seem to mean the person using those words ought to make themselves familiar with what they are making categorical judgments about when using such words.)

Again, SteveVH, it would be your choice to make. The Book of Mormon can be easily found and read on the internet, although reading a copy in hand may be easier to mark and so forth. The one linked on lds.org (Gospel Library–scriptures) is the one that would be also easy to use for its cross-referencing capability into the King James Bible.

Maybe I’m having a brain lapse. I don’t remember saying anything specific about the Book of Mormon other than I felt a darkness which made me physically ill when I read it.

If you picked up a book on World War II and the premise behind it was that we were attacked by Canada, would you feel compelled to read further in order to find discrepancies in the record?

I must tell you Parker, that is how I feel about the BoM. The entire premise, IMO, is utter fiction and fantasy with zero evidence of the existence of the two great civilizations on which it is based. This seems to be a pattern in the foundation of Mormon doctrine and thought, from the “Great Apostasy” to the BoM. There is never anything solid on which you can hang your hat. There is no proof of the apostasy, only a claim. There is no evidence that the civilizations mentioned in the BoM ever existed, only a claim.

I’m amazed at those non-Mormons who will argue fine points about the BoM. From what I have seen, the only truth there has been lifted from Sacred Scripture and mixed into the story in an attempt to lend legitimacy.

My only reason for even looking at this book again is that if I don’t, you will claim that I could find no falsehoods and am therefore avoiding the issue.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Yankee Drifter,

I would be happy to discuss whatever it is you have in mind with you, particularly under the same premise you have presented here–which is that the people who were listening “clearly understood what [Joseph Smith] meant”, and that there were conditions “implied in the prophecy.”

Those implications and premises are precisely the groundwork that are needed, so thank you for bringing them up.

Jospeh Smith: “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)

Since you weren’t there Parker when Smith said this, do you believe its fair to say he did not mean what he said?

 

[ParkerD]

Jospeh Smith: “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)

Since you weren’t there Parker when Smith said this, do you believe its fair to say he did not mean what he said?

Yankee Drifter,
I wanted to get back to you with a brief response, so that you will know I have read your question. I am comfortable with answering, but it is a case where a whole background about the circumstances of that meeting needs to be understood in order to understand the words that were transcribed or were pulled together from the notes of several people who were in the meeting.

I don’t have the time to lay that background at this moment, but will take the time tonight at some point to lay the background for the context to understand the quote about the calling of the Twelve Apostles that day and the purposes of their calling.

 

[ParkerD]

Joseph Smith: “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)

Since you weren’t there Parker when Smith said this, do you believe its fair to say he did not mean what he said?

Yankee Drifter,
Here is the response:

That sentence was not a verbatim direct quote from the lips of Joseph Smith, but we can still evaluate what he likely said, from the context of the entire event where that sentence is included.

The event was a gathering of the LDS members, specifically those men and a few women and children who had been a part of the “Zion’s camp” expedition from Kirtland, Ohio to Missouri to assist the members in Missouri due to mob violence they were experiencing.
From among that group of “Zion’s camp” men in this case, Joseph Smith was inspired to say that the Twelve Apostles were to be chosen by the Three Witnesses so that they could be set apart to their new calling and responsibility, and be given the “keys to the kingdom” on earth.

So “ordained to the ministry” means “ordained to the ministry of bearing witness of Christ in all the world”. “Prune the vineyard for the last time” means that their ministry was to separate the wheat from the midst of the tares, or in other words make the vineyard ready for the coming of the Bridegroom, by carrying the gospel to the world and declaring repentance through faith in Christ and through those listeners who would heed their message, being “prepared for the coming of the Lord.”

“The coming of the Lord” in the Lord’s timetable is always “nigh”, since anyone can die at any time and since the Lord’s people are always asked to be “ready” for His coming. You would be familiar with that teaching in Matthew 24 and Matthew 25.

As to the phrase, “even fifty-six years should wind up the scene”, an active LDS member is going to look at that phrase, see what faithful members such as Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball did as a result of that meeting, and not be concerned about what “wind up the scene” means. I personally see those words and the next paragraphs that talk about the Apostles being called and being endowed with power from on high (which means there are going to need to be temples built for doing that), and note the word “begin” and have the impression that what Joseph Smith was talking about by inspiration was that during the following fifty-six years there would be a series of preparatory events that would prepare the apostles more fully for their full ministry of preparing the world for the Second Coming of the Savior.

Thus, “wind up the scene” does not mean “wind up the scene of the Second Coming”, but “wind up the scene of endowing the Apostles with the full power of their ministry to send forth the gospel and prepare the world for the Second Coming of the Lord.”

During those ensuing fifty-six years, the LDS members built temples in Kirtland and then Nauvoo and then Utah (four in Utah by 1893), and those temples were dedicated and the apostles received increased “power from on high” through both being endowed and through being instructed and gaining a greater understanding of their ministry, and through some of the first apostles losing their place because they didn’t heed the warning of Oliver Cowdery given during those same meetings described in that chapter in the History of the Church.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Yankee Drifter,
Here is the response:

That sentence was not a verbatim direct quote from the lips of Joseph Smith, but we can still evaluate what he likely said, from the context of the entire event where that sentence is included.

The event was a gathering of the LDS members, specifically those men and a few women and children who had been a part of the “Zion’s camp” expedition from Kirtland, Ohio to Missouri to assist the members in Missouri due to mob violence they were experiencing.
From among that group of “Zion’s camp” men in this case, Joseph Smith was inspired to say that the Twelve Apostles were to be chosen by the Three Witnesses so that they could be set apart to their new calling and responsibility, and be given the “keys to the kingdom” on earth.

So “ordained to the ministry” means “ordained to the ministry of bearing witness of Christ in all the world”. “Prune the vineyard for the last time” means that their ministry was to separate the wheat from the midst of the tares, or in other words make the vineyard ready for the coming of the Bridegroom, by carrying the gospel to the world and declaring repentance through faith in Christ and through those listeners who would heed their message, being “prepared for the coming of the Lord.”

“The coming of the Lord” in the Lord’s timetable is always “nigh”, since anyone can die at any time and since the Lord’s people are always asked to be “ready” for His coming. You would be familiar with that teaching in Matthew 24 and Matthew 25.

As to the phrase, “even fifty-six years should wind up the scene”, an active LDS member is going to look at that phrase, see what faithful members such as Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball did as a result of that meeting, and not be concerned about what “wind up the scene” means. I personally see those words and the next paragraphs that talk about the Apostles being called and being endowed with power from on high (which means there are going to need to be temples built for doing that), and note the word “begin” and have the impression that what Joseph Smith was talking about by inspiration was that during the following fifty-six years there would be a series of preparatory events that would prepare the apostles more fully for their full ministry of preparing the world for the Second Coming of the Savior.

Thus, “wind up the scene” does not mean “wind up the scene of the Second Coming”, but “wind up the scene of endowing the Apostles with the full power of their ministry to send forth the gospel and prepare the world for the Second Coming of the Lord.”

During those ensuing fifty-six years, the LDS members built temples in Kirtland and then Nauvoo and then Utah (four in Utah by 1893), and those temples were dedicated and the apostles received increased “power from on high” through both being endowed and through being instructed and gaining a greater understanding of their ministry, and through some of the first apostles losing their place because they didn’t heed the warning of Oliver Cowdery given during those same meetings described in that chapter in the History of the Church.

What book/website are you quoting from?

 

[yankee_drifter]

Smith said: Were I going to prophesy, I would say the end (of the world) would not come in 1844, 5, or 6, or in forty years. There are those of the rising generation who shall not taste death till Christ comes…I prophesy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written–the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till I am eighty-five years old. (History of the Church, 5:336; April 1843)

Two members of the church recorded the following in their journals:

  At the April conference, 1840, the Prophet Joseph, while speaking of some of the elders on this matter said they were mistaken; the Lord would not come in ten years; no, nor in twenty years; no, nor in thirty years; no, nor in forty years, and it will be almost fifty years before the Lord will come [ie.  The Lord will come about 1890].  (Luman Shurtliff Autobiography, 1807-1847, typescript, Brigham Young University - special Collections Library, page 44;  LDS Historical Library, 1992)

Concerning the Millerites (3). They were preparing a place for the Savior to come and meet with them, on a certain day, in that month in Illinois. They were making great preparations by cleaning a certain piece of ground and spreading carpets, etc. Brother Joseph was speaking on the Resurrection' and the Second Coming of the Son of God.’ You can go and tell Brother Miller he won't come on that day nor the next, nor the next year. In the name of Jesus Christ I prophesy he won't come in forty years.'.....He was enquiring of the Lord concerning his second coming; the answer was, If you live to be (I think it was eighty) years old you will see the face of the Son of God.’" (Martha Thomas autobiography, in Daniel Thomas Family History (1927), pages 32-33; LDS Historical Library, 1992)

There is no evidence that any of the people above ever saw the face of the Lord and obviously the Lord did not return.

 

[ParkerD]

What book/website are you quoting from?

Yankee Drifter,

If you’re asking where the context was, then it was in the chapter from which that quote was taken, and I located that on the internet by a Google search since I don’t have a copy.

If you’re asking about the words I wrote about the subject, then those words were from my own mind having read the account and knowing what it was talking about.

 

[ParkerD]

Smith said: Were I going to prophesy, I would say the end (of the world) would not come in 1844, 5, or 6, or in forty years. There are those of the rising generation who shall not taste death till Christ comes…I prophesy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written–the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till I am eighty-five years old. (History of the Church, 5:336; April 1843)

Two members of the church recorded the following in their journals:

  At the April conference, 1840, the Prophet Joseph, while speaking of some of the elders on this matter said they were mistaken; the Lord would not come in ten years; no, nor in twenty years; no, nor in thirty years; no, nor in forty years, and it will be almost fifty years before the Lord will come [ie.  The Lord will come about 1890].  (Luman Shurtliff Autobiography, 1807-1847, typescript, Brigham Young University - special Collections Library, page 44;  LDS Historical Library, 1992)

Concerning the Millerites (3). They were preparing a place for the Savior to come and meet with them, on a certain day, in that month in Illinois. They were making great preparations by cleaning a certain piece of ground and spreading carpets, etc. Brother Joseph was speaking on the Resurrection' and the Second Coming of the Son of God.’ You can go and tell Brother Miller he won't come on that day nor the next, nor the next year. In the name of Jesus Christ I prophesy he won't come in forty years.'.....He was enquiring of the Lord concerning his second coming; the answer was, If you live to be (I think it was eighty) years old you will see the face of the Son of God.’" (Martha Thomas autobiography, in Daniel Thomas Family History (1927), pages 32-33; LDS Historical Library, 1992)

There is no evidence that any of the people above ever saw the face of the Lord and obviously the Lord did not return.

Yankee Drifter,

Here are the words from Joseph Smith about “eighty-five years old”, from a better source than people’s journals since people don’t have a perfect memory when they write in their journal:

Doctrine and Covenants 130:
14 I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:
15 Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.
16 I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.
17 I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.

As you would be able to be aware, Joseph Smith did die and “thus see his face.” He also saw His face in the Kirtland Temple on April 3, 1836.

As far as the “rising generation” prophecy, as far as I’m concerned we are still in the “rising generation” since we have not yet “built Zion” in its full sense, and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost would have a far different view and understanding of “rising generation” than someone writing in their journal would have.

If you’re implicitly asking when the Second Coming will happen, then I would say a lot still needs to happen in preparation that will fulfill prophecy so who knows–perhaps fifty years away, perhaps more or less, but it is beside the point as I noted that the Savior taught we should always be “ready” and “prepared” for the time of His coming.