BofM myths

[baker]

ANd what do you mean by that statement Baker?

I mean, for example, you make claims of "church documents" and "they assume" without providing any support or references.

I have to assume that these are merely your "feelings" unless you can factually support your statements. Thats all.

Like I said, if you've seen the documents, refer us to them. If this is a conclusion based soley on feelings, that' ok too - just state so.

 

[baker]

Dragon & Happy,


Here is the letter from the Office of the First Presidency in the LDS Church. It claims that upstated NY was the setting for the final great battle contained in the BOM and where the plates were buried.

The site reference to a photocopy of the original is here:

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/cumorah.htm

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​

​

 

[baker]

Emerald Dragon,


Now that I have provided you the "church documents" I base, in part, my conclusion - could you provide the church documents you saw to base your conclusion upon?

 

[emerald Dragon]

According to what I have heard, there are two Hill Cumorahs. One where the plates of the Book of Mormon were buried, and the other were all the records that the Book of Mormon is a condensation of are buried, the site of the Battle.

The documents that I refer to are the Book of Mormon (footnotes), the Seminary manuals, and various teahings that I have heard. But, I know that there are two Hill Cumorahs, because one is where the original plates that were the records of the peoples are, and the records are to be preserved. As it says in Mormon 6:6 " And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were asacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would bdestroy• them) therefore I made cthis• record out of the plates of Nephi, and dhid• up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were ethese• few plates which I gave unto my son fMoroni•."

IN the hill in New York, only the abridged version esisted. Mormon said that he had hid all the other records into the hill, where he was, and gave the abridgement to Moroni. This implies that two hills existed.

God Bless,
Emerald Dragon

 

[happyinhisgrace]

Baker, thank you for posting the letter.

Grace

 

[baker]

According to what I have heard, there are two Hill Cumorahs. One where the plates of the Book of Mormon were buried, and the other were all the records that the Book of Mormon is a condensation of are buried, the site of the Battle.

The documents that I refer to are the Book of Mormon (footnotes), the Seminary manuals, and various teahings that I have heard. But, I know that there are two Hill Cumorahs, because one is where the original plates that were the records of the peoples are, and the records are to be preserved. As it says in Mormon 6:6 " And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were asacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would bdestroy• them) therefore I made cthis• record out of the plates of Nephi, and dhid• up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were ethese• few plates which I gave unto my son fMoroni•."

IN the hill in New York, only the abridged version esisted. Mormon said that he had hid all the other records into the hill, where he was, and gave the abridgement to Moroni. This implies that two hills existed.

God Bless,
Emerald Dragon

Dragon,

Based on the above letter from the office of your first presidency, it sounds like you and President Hinkley are in disagreement.

May I suggest that you try and convince Hinkley of your theory first before you try and convince those on this board!

After all, if I was going to believe anyone, who would you suggest I believe, you or your prophet?

 

[twhite982]

Dragon,

Based on the above letter from the office of your first presidency, it sounds like you and President Hinkley are in disagreement.

May I suggest that you try and convince Hinkley of your theory first before you try and convince those on this board!

After all, if I was going to believe anyone, who would you suggest I believe, you or your prophet?

Baker,

This post rings a bell.

DocT had already discussed this with you before.

We have pointed out from scripture how it seems illogical, knowing what we know about the battle for the Hill cumorah in New York to be the same one at the final battle.

Anyways, I posted a link from Farms which discusses the two views, but primarily focuses on the view of 2 different cumorahs.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=98&previous=L3B1YmxpY2F0aW9ucy9ib29rb2Ztb3Jtb252aWV3LnBocA==

TW

 

[Svt4Him]

We have pointed out from scripture how it seems illogical, knowing what we know about the battle for the Hill cumorah in New York to be the same one at the final battle.

Yes, but this is the whole reason for the post, it is illogical.

 

[twhite982]

Yes, but this is the whole reason for the post, it is illogical.

I need to do a better job with my punctuation.

I was trying to say that the last great battle (Mormon) doesn't seem logically to fit with the same hill cumorah that Joseph recieved the plates from Moroni.

TW

 

[happyinhisgrace]

Dragon,

Based on the above letter from the office of your first presidency, it sounds like you and President Hinkley are in disagreement.

May I suggest that you try and convince Hinkley of your theory first before you try and convince those on this board!

After all, if I was going to believe anyone, who would you suggest I believe, you or your prophet?

This poses a good question. If the prophet says one thing and the so called lds "scholors" say another thing who do you believe? Are the "scholors" right and the "prophet" isn't really all that inspired as to "truth" or facts of the very teachings of the church he leads or is the "prophet" right and the "scholors" have no idea what they are talking about?

Grace

 

[baker]

Baker,

This post rings a bell.

DocT had already discussed this with you before.

We have pointed out from scripture how it seems illogical, knowing what we know about the battle for the Hill cumorah in New York to be the same one at the final battle.TW

Twhite,

You are right. Doc and I have discussed this. He said the letter was not from the office of the first presidency even though it is. (Have still never understood why it isn't something it says it is .) He also said he was getting a photo copy of some kind of official retraction letter - still haven't seen that!

Anyway, the point of this issue is that Dragon made claims that for which he has not provided support. The letter above merely shows that FARMS & Dragon and the office of the first presidency are in disagreement.

Like I have asked before, if you were going to believe someone, who should it be - the president or some member?

 

[twhite982]

This poses a good question. If the prophet says one thing and the so called lds "scholors" say another thing who do you believe? Are the "scholors" right and the "prophet" isn't really all that inspired as to "truth" or facts of the very teachings of the church he leads or is the "prophet" right and the "scholors" have no idea what they are talking about?

Grace

The point of this discussion before with Baker was that the church has NEVER made an official statement regarding geography to the public on the B of M. In fact initially the statements by early church leaders were made that the purpose of the B of M is not one of geography.

However with this said many LDS leaders have expressed their view on different geographical locations, archaelogy, etc..., but the church has not made public declaration stating what the church believes in regards to B of M geography.

Its Baker's contention that the church has indeed made official statements to this regard. I have yet to see maps in manuals showing specifics of where the church stands in relation to geography.

There are maps in church manuals, regarding possible B of M geography, but always at the bottom of the page will be the disclaimer that its not official.
The point of the map is for a rough idea and pictoral representation of possible sites, not specific locations.

TW

 

[happyinhisgrace]

The point of this discussion before with Baker was that the church has NEVER made an official statement regarding geography to the public on the B of M. In fact initially the statements by early church leaders were made that the purpose of the B of M is not one of geography.

However with this said many LDS leaders have expressed their view on different geographical locations, archaelogy, etc..., but the church has not made public declaration stating what the church believes in regards to B of M geography.

Its Baker's contention that the church has indeed made official statements to this regard. I have yet to see maps in manuals showing specifics of where the church stands in relation to geography.

There are maps in church manuals, regarding possible B of M geography, but always at the bottom of the page will be the disclaimer that its not official.
The point of the map is for a rough idea and pictoral representation of possible sites, not specific locations.

TW

Ok, I can see what you are saying about "no official" declaration (public declaration or such) but if the "prophet" says that comorah is in a certain place, wouldn't that be of more value in regards to where it is than what other LDS may say? I mean he is suppose to be the one person on the earth that "holds all the keys" and has the "closest" relationship with God.

The way I see it is like I said before...If the prophet (who leads the very church that believes in the BofM stories of Camorah) gives a statement as to where the battle was and is wrong, he doesn't appear to be much of a prophet but if he does give a statement that is true then it is the scholors that are off in a world of their own and making stuff up as they go along. Do you see what I'm saying? Who do you believe....you prophet or the FARMS folks?

Grace

 

[baker]

Its Baker's contention that the church has indeed made official statements to this regard. I have yet to see maps in manuals showing specifics of where the church stands in relation to geography.

Whoa TW, lets reign in that team a little for a minute.

I have only claimed that the mormon church's "office of the first presidency" issue a letter stating that the church has long held and believed that the sight and location of Hill Cumorah is the hill in NY and is one and the same with the one mentioned in the BOM.

I have also made statements in the past that previous prophets and aposltes in the mormon church are on record with the same conclusion as expressed by Hinkley in the letter issued in 1990.

 

[twhite982]

Ok, I can see what you are saying about "no official" declaration (public declaration or such) but if the "prophet" says that comorah is in a certain place, wouldn't that be of more value in regards to where it is than what other LDS may say? I mean he is suppose to be the one person on the earth that "holds all the keys" and has the "closest" relationship with God.

The way I see it is like I said before...If the prophet (who leads the very church that believes in the BofM stories of Camorah) gives a statement as to where the battle was and is wrong, he doesn't appear to be much of a prophet but if he does give a statement that is true then it is the scholors that are off in a world of their own and making stuff up as they go along. Do you see what I'm saying? Who do you believe....you prophet or the FARMS folks?

Grace

I know of several different LDS prophets who believe in different locations for Mt. Sanai (Sp??). When they state where they believe Mt. Sanai to be and it conflicts with other prophet's statements, what does it mean.?
It means that one prophet feels one way and another feels differently.
Are prophets not allowed to express their viewpoints?
I don't recall any prophet stating that their position in regards to the hill is what the LDS church teaches or should start teaching. If they did I sure never got wind of it.

If the matter was of such great importance, we would've had an official public declaration on it, but its not at this point in time.

IMHO, those raising the red flag are only trying build a straw man by their presupositions of "anything a prophet says if official".

As Hank Hanegraaf, would say "Its an in-house debate, one we can debate vigorously, but don't have to divide over". I've always wanted to use that.

TW

 

[happyinhisgrace]

I know of several different LDS prophets who believe in different locations for Mt. Sanai (Sp??). When they state where they believe Mt. Sanai to be and it conflicts with other prophet's statements, what does it mean.?
It means that one prophet feels one way and another feels differently.
Are prophets not allowed to express their viewpoints?
I don't recall any prophet stating that their position in regards to the hill is what the LDS church teaches or should start teaching. If they did I sure never got wind of it.

If the matter was of such great importance, we would've had an official public declaration on it, but its not at this point in time.

IMHO, those raising the red flag are only trying build a straw man by their presupositions of "anything a prophet says if official".

As Hank Hanegraaf, would say "Its an in-house debate, one we can debate vigorously, but don't have to divide over". I've always wanted to use that.

TW

I never made the statement that it was "official" but you seem to have not answered my question at all but rather have once again avoided giving a direct answer.

If the "prophet" of your church says something and he is supposed to be the one who hold all the keys and is closer to God than anyone else on the earth at this time do you not believe what he says or do you just believe what the scholors (lds) say on the subject? I don't see in the letter where it was stated that it was just his "opinion". I will go back and re-read the letter just to make sure. The responce seemed to be a rather definite "yes". So, do you believe your prophet when he claims that it is in fact the spot of the battle or do you think your prophet is just talking for the sake of talking and giving "his opinion" so you don't need to regard what he says at all?

Grace

 

[happyinhisgrace]

As Hank Hanegraaf, would say "Its an in-house debate, one we can debate vigorously, but don't have to divide over". I've always wanted to use that.

LOL, and if you listen to Hank H. a lot (which it sounds like you might) you are well aware that he regards that Christians and LDS are already divided and in fact incourages the division. When he makes that statement that you posted (above) he is speaking about those within the Christian community, not LDS.

I have to take breaks now and then from listening to Hank. His "Carl Sagon" way of speaking wears on me at times....lol

Grace

 

[twhite982]

I never made the statement that it was "official" but you seem to have not answered my question at all but rather have once again avoided giving a direct answer.

I never said you did.

If the "prophet" of your church says something and he is supposed to be the one who hold all the keys and is closer to God than anyone else on the earth at this time do you not believe what he says or do you just believe what the scholors (lds) say on the subject? I don't see in the letter where it was stated that it was just his "opinion". I will go back and re-read the letter just to make sure. The responce seemed to be a rather definite "yes". So, do you believe your prophet when he claims that it is in fact the spot of the battle or do you think your prophet is just talking for the sake of talking and giving "his opinion" so you don't need to regard what he says at all?

Grace

This is not a YES or NO question, in fact its begging the question.

The context of the statement would be important, of course. But, even more important is the simple fact that the LDS church has held firm on its stance on geography and NO official declaration has come forth.

Those LDS leaders are allowed to voice their opinion. I've never heard one say this is the way it is and you better believe it. Also those at Farms are allowed to have their opinions as well. In fact I'm allowed to have an opinion and from what I've gathered putting all the "evidence" together I support the two hills.

Am I disobeying a prophet by having an opposite view? NO

We need to get the idea out of our head that everything that comes out of a LDS leader's mouth is directly from God. This will simplify many of these discussions.

I am answering your question directly, but remember it was not a YES or NO type.

 

[twhite982]

LOL, and if you listen to Hank H. a lot (which it sounds like you might) you are well aware that he regards that Christians and LDS are already divided and in fact incourages the division. When he makes that statement that you posted (above) he is speaking about those within the Christian community, not LDS.

I know how Hank uses the cliche.

My point is that this issue is an in-house LDS debate since their is NO official word yet.

I have to take breaks now and then from listening to Hank. His "Carl Sagon" way of speaking wears on me at times....lol

Grace

I actually like Hank even though he has an obvious bias towards the LDS.

This just goes to show that I am tolerant of what people say regardless if I disagree with them or not. I've learned alot from Hank, He'd make a great Mormon. He already has the family size for it.

TW

 

[happyinhisgrace]

I never said you did.

This is not a YES or NO question, in fact its begging the question.

The context of the statement would be important, of course. But, even more important is the simple fact that the LDS church has held firm on its stance on geography and NO official declaration has come forth.

Those LDS leaders are allowed to voice their opinion. I've never heard one say this is the way it is and you better believe it. Also those at Farms are allowed to have their opinions as well. In fact I'm allowed to have an opinion and from what I've gathered putting all the "evidence" together I support the two hills.

Am I disobeying a prophet by having an opposite view? NO

We need to get the idea out of our head that everything that comes out of a LDS leader's mouth is directly from God. This will simplify many of these discussions.

I am answering your question directly, but remember it was not a YES or NO type.

It is a yes or no question. Do you believe that your prophet knows what he is talking about when he claims that it is the same spot for the battle or do you believe he doesn't know and it just "guessing"? Do you believe your prophet who is the head of your church or do you believe the folks at FARMS?

Ok, so those are 2 yes or no questions and they should be easy to answer. They are definitly yes or no questions.

Grace