Where is Shim in relation to the hill Cumorah?
MikePi
of the Land of Desolation and travelling many days, passing
by the hill of Shim, and coming to the place where the
Nephites were destroyed (Cumorah) and from there eastward
to Ablom by the seashore.
Since all the descendants of the Jaredites were destroyed
in what is called the Land of Desolation, does this mean
that Shim (from where Mormon retrieved the plates) and
Cumorah (where Mormoni hid the plates) are both in the land
called Desolation?
Since Alma 22:33 says that the land of Bountiful stretched
from the east sea to the west sea, I assume the land of
Desolation also stretched from the east sea to west sea. Is
that a fair assumption?
Mormon 4:19 says that the Lamanites and the Nephites battled
in the land Desolation, and Mormon 4:23 said that Mormon
went to the hill Shim to take up the records when he saw that
the Lamanites were about the overthrow the land. Would this
also lead one to believe that Shim is in the land of
Desolation?
How close is Shim to Cumorah?
Mike
father of peace
>Since Alma 22:33 says that the land of Bountiful stretched
>from the east sea to the west sea, I assume the land of
>Desolation also stretched from the east sea to west sea. Is
>that a fair assumption?
The land of desolation might have been north of the
great lakes, and not between the seas at all, or it could have
been between the sea north and the sea south....
>Mormon 4:19 says that the Lamanites and the Nephites battled
>in the land Desolation, and Mormon 4:23 said that Mormon
>went to the hill Shim to take up the records when he saw that
>the Lamanites were about the overthrow the land. Would this
>also lead one to believe that Shim is in the land of
>Desolation?
>
>How close is Shim to Cumorah?
Less than 50 miles. Do your geographic figurings
based on a great lakes scenario. It will get you a lot
further than a meso american setting.
Love,
Absalom
--
What is your rank in the LDS church?
That you feel compelled to correct me
for what I have written. (Adapted from Curious Nancy)
Dave
> How close is Shim to Cumorah?
A plane crashed on the border between canada and the usa. In which country
did they bury the survivors?
Woody Brison
MikePi wrote:
> How close is Shim to Cumorah?
One thing to be careful of, the hill in eastern New York
state which the LDS call the Hill Cumorah, is the hill
Moroni cached the final set of plates in, but it's NOT
(necessarily) the hill where the Nephites had their last
battle.
Moroni survived that last battle. He wandered around
and he still had the plates. At some point he cached
them. It makes sense that the Lord would direct him to
carry them to where Joseph Smith the young boy would be
living 1400 years later. We don't know how long Moroni
lived, but in a few years he could walk anywhere on the
continent.
The LDS have pretty much always called this hill Cumorah,
but last I heard, we could never find a statement by
Joseph himself (the only one to really converse with
Moroni about this) calling this THE hill Cumorah. We
found statements by others such as Oliver Cowdery, calling
it Cumorah, but without explanation to show whether this
was the hill of the battle, or if this hill just sort of
acquired the name by LDS usage.
Wood
MikePi
> The land of desolation might have been north of the
> great lakes, and not between the seas at all, or it could have
> been between the sea north and the sea south....
>
When the land that Jared came to was described as a choice
land above all lands, would that include all of America
from north to south pole, or if your reasoning is right
that would make Canada the choice land above all lands?
> >How close is Shim to Cumorah?
>
> Less than 50 miles.
How do you figure that?
What to you would indicate that Shim and Cumorah are not
in the land of Desolation as I mentioned before?
> Do your geographic figurings
> based on a great lakes scenario.
Yes. I remember seeing that mentioned in the Book of
Mormon.
Mike
Jeff
Woody Brison wrote:
> Moroni survived that last battle. He wandered around
> and he still had the plates. At some point he cached
> them.
What are the dimensions of the plates?
> It makes sense that the Lord would direct him to
> carry them to where Joseph Smith the young boy would be
> living 1400 years later. We don't know how long Moroni
> lived, but in a few years he could walk anywhere on the
> continent.
It is recorded that Mormon took all the plates that Ammaron had hidden
unto the Lord (all the plates handed down from generation to
generation) and eventually gave control of them to his son Moroni.
This included the brass plates of Nephi, and the seer stones.
But from what I have read, Joseph Smith only found the gold plates
(Book of Mormon doesn't mention metal type) and the 2 seer stones ...
but no brass plates.
How come he didn't find Nephi's brass plates?
>
> The LDS have pretty much always called this hill Cumorah,
> but last I heard, we could never find a statement by
> Joseph himself (the only one to really converse with
> Moroni about this) calling this THE hill Cumorah. We
> found statements by others such as Oliver Cowdery, calling
> it Cumorah, but without explanation to show whether this
> was the hill of the battle, or if this hill just sort of
> acquired the name by LDS usage.
>
> Wood
In the Book of Mormon, there is mention of I think 2 Jerusalems but it
is very clear that one is in Israel and the other is recorded as being
in the land the Lehi was led to.
As far as the Book of Mormon is concerned, there is only one hill
Cumorah.
After Moroni wrote it, I wonder why he would have to converse again
with Joseph Smith. If "this" hill Cumorah is not "THE" hill Cumorah,
then one may also say that Ether's land of Desolation is not Alma's
land of Desolation. When you start to do this, one loses a sense of
all geography.
Jeff
David / Amicus
desolation might have been north of the great lakes, and not between the
seas at all, or it could have been between the sea north and the sea
south....>>
Regarding the location of the BoM lands, I'm thinking from a Strangite
perspective, that they just might be the Great Lakes region. For if
James Strang were a prophet and the rightful successor to JS the place
of gathering was not the Great Basin but rather (besides Independence)
the lands around Voree and St James (Beaver Is). Makes sense then that
the Great Lakes area are the BoM lands and Cumorah (NY) is Cumorah!
Zebedee
> Woody Brison wrote:
>
>>Moroni survived that last battle. He wandered around
>>and he still had the plates. At some point he cached
>>them.
>
> What are the dimensions of the plates?
Larger than a bread loaf, smaller than the average
carry-on bag used by most airline travelers.
>>It makes sense that the Lord would direct him to
>>carry them to where Joseph Smith the young boy would be
>>living 1400 years later. We don't know how long Moroni
>>lived, but in a few years he could walk anywhere on the
>>continent.
>
> It is recorded that Mormon took all the plates that Ammaron had hidden
> unto the Lord (all the plates handed down from generation to
> generation) and eventually gave control of them to his son Moroni.
> This included the brass plates of Nephi, and the seer stones.
Let's assume you mean the Plates of Laban - that which
most call the Brass Plates and Nephi carried back into
the desert from Jerusalem. More on these later.
What is not recorded is: Did Moroni keep all the plates
in one place, always and forever? What is also not seen
in the Book of Mormon is what Moroni did after he wrote
his last amen. He could have taken up skiing for all we
know.
> But from what I have read, Joseph Smith only found the gold plates
> (Book of Mormon doesn't mention metal type) and the 2 seer stones ...
> but no brass plates.
>
> How come he didn't find Nephi's brass plates?
Because Moroni did not put Laban's Plates in the box to
be found.
> In the Book of Mormon, there is mention of I think 2 Jerusalems but it
> is very clear that one is in Israel and the other is recorded as being
> in the land the Lehi was led to.
>
> As far as the Book of Mormon is concerned, there is only one hill
> Cumorah.
Really? I am not certain how you came to be so certain
of this conclusion. There is scant evidence for a hard
count of hills called Cumorah. For example the initial
reference to the hill is in Mormon 6:2 -
And I, Mormon, wrote an epistle unto the king of the
Lamanites, and desired of him that he would grant to
us that we might gather together our people unto the
land of Cumorah, by a hill which was called Cumorah,
and there we could give them battle.
Note that says it was "a hill that was called Cumorah".
Not THE Cumorah; just a hill called that. Some of the
confusion in early settlers to north america came from
asking the natives the names for rivers -- they tended
to respond with words that described the river, or the
way it looked then and there, rather than the specific
identifier the Europeans were looking for. It made it
easy to get lost, since any given river might be "low"
or "muddy" or "loud" in different spots or days.
> After Moroni wrote it, I wonder why he would have to converse again
> with Joseph Smith. If "this" hill Cumorah is not "THE" hill Cumorah,
> then one may also say that Ether's land of Desolation is not Alma's
> land of Desolation. When you start to do this, one loses a sense of
> all geography.
This reads as if it was a bit conclusion jumped. Could
it be that there is very little real geographical data
in the Book of Mormon that trying to hold onto a sense
of it is difficult irrespective of the number of hills
named Cumorah or lands called Desolation?
Zeb
Woody Brison
Jeff wrote:
> Woody Brison wrote:
> > Moroni survived that last battle. He wandered around
> > and he still had the plates. At some point he cached
> > them.
>
> What are the dimensions of the plates?
Joseph Smith said the plates were about six inches by eight,
and the stack was about six inches thick. Others said
similar, perhaps an inch larger. Joseph worked with them
daily, the others saw them once, or maybe felt them thru a
cloth once.
> > It makes sense that the Lord would direct him to
> > carry them to where Joseph Smith the young boy would be
> > living 1400 years later. We don't know how long Moroni
> > lived, but in a few years he could walk anywhere on the
> > continent.
>
> It is recorded that Mormon took all the plates that Ammaron had
hidden
> unto the Lord (all the plates handed down from generation to
> generation) and eventually gave control of them to his son Moroni.
> This included the brass plates of Nephi, and the seer stones.
>
> But from what I have read, Joseph Smith only found the gold plates
> (Book of Mormon doesn't mention metal type) and the 2 seer stones ...
> but no brass plates.
>
> How come he didn't find Nephi's brass plates?
I believe that Moroni managed to store the entire load of
plates somewhere, a cave would be the most likely place. (He
had a whole army of men to pile rocks and dirt in the
entrance.) He only retained the one book of plates and
hid it separate from the others, under the stone on the
NY hill. This was what he guided Joseph to find.
> > The LDS have pretty much always called this hill Cumorah,
> > but last I heard, we could never find a statement by
> > Joseph himself (the only one to really converse with
> > Moroni about this) calling this THE hill Cumorah. We
> > found statements by others such as Oliver Cowdery, calling
> > it Cumorah, but without explanation to show whether this
> > was the hill of the battle, or if this hill just sort of
> > acquired the name by LDS usage.
>
> In the Book of Mormon, there is mention of I think 2 Jerusalems but
it
> is very clear that one is in Israel and the other is recorded as
being
> in the land the Lehi was led to.
Yes. A beginner could get thoroughly confused if they
didn't know there were two Jerusalems (Ether 13:4-5)
> As far as the Book of Mormon is concerned, there is only one hill
> Cumorah.
True. The Nephites gathered to the land of Cumorah, around the
hill called by the same name; this hill was "in a land of many
waters, rivers, and fountains (Mormon 6:4) I'm not sure that
would describe the Manchester, NY area exactly. The creek that
runs down the middle of the broad valley in which the Smith
farm was, is just a little creek today, maybe 4 feet wide. It
drains a lot of area. If I were set down in that place, and it
was wild, I'd say it was "a land of rolling hills, completely
covered by forest." Any field there that's left unattended
becomes a forest after a few years.
I really don't know. If there were some irrefutable evidence
one way or another, I'd buy it. Some things are known to be
true, and some things are known to be false, and some things
are in the middle -- we don't know. I guess the question of
there being two hills or one called Cumorah is in this middle
category. I have no problem with that; the answer will come
eventually. Meantime, we can look at other points and make
progress anyway.
> After Moroni wrote it, I wonder why he would have to converse again
> with Joseph Smith. If "this" hill Cumorah is not "THE" hill Cumorah,
> then one may also say that Ether's land of Desolation is not Alma's
> land of Desolation. When you start to do this, one loses a sense of
> all geography.
Good point, excellent point. We have to be cautious about
Book of Mormon geography, there were many events laid on top
of previous ones. The Lamanites occupied the Nephite lands
and eradicated anything Nephite, over a period of more than
a thousand years. They would build their own stuff and then
eradicate IT, in wars between themselves.
It's very risky to be too dogmatic about interpreting an end
result of such a process. As an illustration, I've made a
diagram and placed it at
____________ _ _ _____ _____ _
It shows a few simple shapes. Can you interpret the sequence
that created it?
Here's how I actually made this: In Microsoft Paint, I drew
a black solid circle on a white background. Then using the
Select Rectangle tool, I cut out the center third horizontally
and slid it right about a third of a diameter. Then I cut
out the center 10th, vertically, and slid it down about a
third of a diameter. Next I drew 3 gray diagonal lines.
Then I cut out the center third vertically and slid it up 1/3
diameter. Then I slanted the whole 10 degrees right, using
the Image Stretch/Skew tool. Finally, I cut out the center
half vertically and slid it down a little. If done carefully
in reverse, these same steps will recreate the original
blank white area -- but so will a lot of other sequences!
I would guess that 10 people would come up with at least 5
different scenarious of how this diagram got created (assuming
anyone wanted to) It's just too complex. And yet it's dirt
simple compared to the archaeology of two entire continents.
But with a readout, a description by people who lived thru
the history, it becomes possible to piece things together.
It's fun to try anyway.
Wood
efrien...@hotmail.com
MikePi wrote:
> Ether 9:3 is an account of Omer departing out of a portion
> of the Land of Desolation and travelling many days, passing
> by the hill of Shim, and coming to the place where the
> Nephites were destroyed (Cumorah) and from there eastward
> to Ablom by the seashore.
> How close is Shim to Cumorah?
> > Mike
I believe that Venice Priddis (she was an LDS Seminary teacher) has
basically the correct understanding of Book of Mormon geography. Her
research is found in "The Book and the Map".
Those at FARMS, and others sometimes ridicule her concept, but one
should read this book and decide for themselves. I certainly do not
believe all the details she determines are necessarily correct (neither
does she), just the basic thesis of the book. And I recognize there is
no revelation proving this thesis.
Over the years I have had a few telephone conversations with Venice.
She is now 80 years old, but not long ago she told me she will soon
come out with a new update to her research.
In her book, the Amazon basin was under water in 600 BC until Christ,
and was the Nephite Sea East. Thus, the bay of Quayaquil (Ecuador) was
the area of the narrow neck of land.
If you want a copy, this is an inexpensive source (notice the used
copies): http://snipurl.com/dj1c
OK, in her book, she determines that a likely choice for the hill Shim
would be "Cerro Hermoso". Her choice of the Hill Cumorah is "Cerro
Imbabura". Both are in Ecuador, so they are not that far apart.
I would quote from her book, but the Moderators would likely ax this
message.
Richard
Scott Eckelman
"Woody Brison" <woody_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:113onie...@news.supernews.com...
>
> Jeff wrote:
>> Woody Brison wrote:
>> > Moroni survived that last battle. He wandered around
>> > and he still had the plates. At some point he cached
>> > them.
>>
>> What are the dimensions of the plates?
>
> Joseph Smith said the plates were about six inches by eight,
> and the stack was about six inches thick. Others said
> similar, perhaps an inch larger. Joseph worked with them
> daily, the others saw them once, or maybe felt them thru a
> cloth once.
This is where I have a problem with the whole plate thing. This
much metal would have weighed around 100 lbs, give or take. But
Mormon summarized the original plates and only wrote down 1 part
in 100 of them, which he stated a couple of times. So the
original source plates Morman recovered must have weighed 4 or 5
tons. How did he ever move them, especially while under attack
from the Lamanites and wander for 20 years or so then re-bury
them wherever they are now?
Scott E.
David / Amicus
upper New York state is the Cumorah of the Nephites.
Cumorah Is Cumorah
Address:http://www.xmission.com/~hunter/cumorah.htm Changed:3:48 PM on
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Gene Fuller
"Jeff" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:113n9ia...@news.supernews.com...
>
> Woody Brison wrote:
>> Moroni survived that last battle. He wandered around
>> and he still had the plates. At some point he cached
>> them.
>
> What are the dimensions of the plates?
If you have not found a record of that, it maybe that we have not either.
Why would that be, you sk. It might be for either of two reasons. First
maybe we don't really need to know that, and second maybe it is not time for
us to need to know it. In any case, if that information is not available, it
is most likely because God does not want it to be.
Snip
> It is recorded that Mormon took all the plates that Ammaron had hidden
> unto the Lord (all the plates handed down from generation to
> generation) and eventually gave control of them to his son Moroni.
> This included the brass plates of Nephi, and the seer stones.
I will accept your word for that, since I have not read it for a while.
> But from what I have read, Joseph Smith only found the gold plates
> (Book of Mormon doesn't mention metal type) and the 2 seer stones ...
> but no brass plates.
Actually, Joseph did not "find" anything on his own. What he "found" was
delivered to him by Moroni.
> How come he didn't find Nephi's brass plates?
Could it be that it was because Morioni did not deliver them to him? Could
that be because it was not at that time in God's plan for him to have them?
I am sure that you have heard of Occam's razor. I think it roughly says that
the simple and uncontrived explanation is frequently better that the complex
and convolutied one.
Snip
> In the Book of Mormon, there is mention of I think 2 Jerusalems but it
> is very clear that one is in Israel and the other is recorded as being
> in the land the Lehi was led to.
Snip
> As far as the Book of Mormon is concerned, there is only one hill
> Cumorah.
Why is that bothersome?
> After Moroni wrote it, I wonder why he would have to converse again
> with Joseph Smith. If "this" hill Cumorah is not "THE" hill Cumorah,
> then one may also say that Ether's land of Desolation is not Alma's
> land of Desolation. When you start to do this, one loses a sense of
> all geography.
Why is that troublesome? I think God was not interested in teaching us the
geography or the ancient lands.
Gene Fuller
"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:113od01...@news.supernews.com...
This is based on a very "iffy" premise, however. If James Strang was a
prophet, and the rightful successor to Joseph Smith, why did God not
preserve some evidence of that fact? If the place of gathering was around
Voree, etc, why did it fail?
See how fruitless speculation can be about things that are not revealed?
E. Mark Ping
Scott Eckelman <seck...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Joseph Smith said the plates were about six inches by eight,
>> and the stack was about six inches thick. Others said
>> similar, perhaps an inch larger. Joseph worked with them
>> daily, the others saw them once, or maybe felt them thru a
>> cloth once.
>
>This is where I have a problem with the whole plate thing. This
>much metal would have weighed around 100 lbs, give or take.
Based on what assumptions?
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Scott Eckelman
"E. Mark Ping" <ema...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:113q9pu...@news.supernews.com...
Based on the fact that a 6 x 6 x 8 inch block of gold weighs 200
pounds. If the plates were solid gold leaf they would weigh at
least 150 pounds even allowing for significant space between the
pages. The original plates weren't gold (I don't think - e.g.,
Laban's were brass), so would have weighed less. Brass weighs a
little less than half of gold so if the original plates are
approximately the same size a similar size block would weigh 75
pounds or so. There are large plates and small plates, possibly
of different metals. 100 pounds seems a reasonable estimate to
me.
Scott E.
Levi
> "E. Mark Ping" <ema...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu>
>
>>Scott Eckelman <seck...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>This is where I have a problem with the whole plate thing. This
>>>much metal would have weighed around 100 lbs, give or take.
>>
>>Based on what assumptions?
>
> Based on the fact that a 6 x 6 x 8 inch block of gold weighs 200
> pounds. If the plates were solid gold leaf they would weigh at
> least 150 pounds even allowing for significant space between the
> pages. The original plates weren't gold (I don't think - e.g.,
> Laban's were brass), so would have weighed less. Brass weighs a
> little less than half of gold so if the original plates are
> approximately the same size a similar size block would weigh 75
> pounds or so. There are large plates and small plates, possibly
> of different metals. 100 pounds seems a reasonable estimate to
> me.
I think it is very unreasonable to attempt coming up with a
reasonable estimate; the number of unknowns are simply too high.
Consider this practical example. I have been involved in
metallurgical research in the past (actually laser research but it
fell into testing the effects of different lasers on large blocks of
different metals). Our test targets were blocks of metals like
steel, aluminium, brass and tin that were roughly textbook sized
(20x30 cm, 5 cm thick) slabs of metal.
I know how it feels to lift a 2in slab of aluminium.
One of the local schools runs a benefit to raise funds that involves
making "submarine" sandwiches for sale. They are wrapped in
aluminium foil that is roughly the same surface dimension as the
slabs of aluminium I once tested with. Part of the prep work for
making the sandwiches is to precut all the foil. Students cut and
stack foil in 200-sheet piles, then deliver them to the wrapping
stations. A 200 sheet pile of aluminium foil is roughly the same
dimensions as a test slab. By heft, I would estimate that the foil
weighs about 20-25% of solid mass of the same material.
Applying the same results to the gold plates would yield a weight,
using your numbers, of 40 to 50 pounds for "gold", considerably less
for alloys or lighter metals.
Is this a valid method for estimating the weight of the gold plates?
No. I don't know a method for doing that.
Levi
David / Amicus
Strang was a prophet, and the rightful successor to Joseph Smith, why
did God not preserve some evidence of that fact? If the place of
gathering was around Voree, etc, why did it fail?>>
Why did Kirtland, Zion, Adam-ondi-Ahman, Far West, Nauvoo and all the
places Joseph Smith attempted to establish fail?
Nonetheless James did the things that Joseph did as Prophet, Seer,
Revelator and Translator and provided evidence thereof! James conversed
with angels and translated ancient records like the Voree Plates and the
Book of the Law of the Lord.
father of peace
>prophet, and the rightful successor to Joseph Smith, why did God not
>preserve some evidence of that fact?
What kind of evidence should God provide to
proe that someone is a prophet?
>If the place of gathering was around
>Voree, etc, why did it fail?
Why did the Missouri gathering fail?
>See how fruitless speculation can be about things
>that are not revealed?
I guess that revelation to one is humbug
to another.
father of peace
>>This is where I have a problem with the whole plate thing. This
>>much metal would have weighed around 100 lbs, give or take.
I routinely carry items weighing 120 pounds: bales of hay,
3 boxes of apples, 2 buckets of mortor, etc. Been doing it
since I was a boy. I never thought of myself as strong,
or particularly athletic... My brothers are stronger than I am.
>Based on what assumptions?
The density of gold is 19.3 times as heavy as water, so if
we do the math 8 in x 6 in x 6 inch and assume the block was
solid gold, we calculate that a solid block of gold the size of
the plates weighs 200 pounds, from which we can
deduce the assumption which was used in the
original speculation, which was that half the volume
of the plates was air. Which may be a reasonabe
assumption. Some irregularities in the construction of
the plates, or denting from the stylus, may have been
as deep as the metal...
father of peace
>I know how it feels to lift a 2in slab of aluminium.
>A 200 sheet pile of aluminium foil is roughly the same
>dimensions as a test slab. By heft, I would estimate that the foil
>weighs about 20-25% of solid mass of the same material.
>Is this a valid method for estimating the weight of the gold plates?
> No. I don't know a method for doing that.
It may be more valid than just guessing how much air was inside
the plates... At least this estimate had some practical experience
associated with it.
Another variable not considered so far is that natural gold is
usually alloyed with silver, which could lower the density to as
low as 15, thus a solid block of gold the size of the plates
might have weighed as little as 160 pounds. If we use
the aluminum foil anctedote, the plates might have weighed
as little as 32 pounds.
David / Amicus
in BoM times.
Jeff Shirton
> Maybe Moroni used a pack horse to carry the plates?
> There were horses in BoM times.
Horses?!
In pre-Columbian America?
Can, open... Worms, all over the place! <g>
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot
ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"[T]he gospel is not that man can become god,
but that God became a man." -- James White
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!
Gene Fuller
That is a fair question, and of course the answer is that those places
failed because of the lack of righteousness on the part of many of the
people who lived there, even though there was great righteousness and
sacrifice there as well. Some of this unrighteousness may even be laid at
the feet of Joseph. We have no indication that he had been perfected as yet,
and he was thus able to misunderstand and misjudge situations, and perhaps
even revelations. This could apply to Voree, also, but I believe that the
claims of and for James String are simply not true.. The fact also remains
that the work established by Joseph and continued by Brigham and after him
by prophets of God up to and including Gordon B. Hinckley has continued to
take the Restored Gospel more and more widely throughout the world. I know
very little of what may be happening still as a result of whatever James
String did. If you know of important things, I would be interested in your
testimony.
Your assertion that James String did the things that Joseph did is, as far
as I am concerned, unsupported. I doubt that you truly believe that James
conversed with angels, and translated ancient records. If you do believe
this, I doubt that you believe that it means that he was a true prophet.
This is not an attack on you, by the way, it is based on what you have
previously told us about yourself, your religious background and your
current beliefs, or at least professed beliefs. A true belief in the claims
of James String and his followers does not seem compatible with the rest of
your stated beliefs.
Gene Fuller
> Maybe Moroni used a pack horse to carry the plates? There were horses
> in BoM times.
Mules are more reliable and stronger pound for pound. But why use either a
horse or mule if there were still cumoms and cureloms available? My
speculation is that these animals, found useful by the Jaredites, had
disappeared by the time of Moroni. Possibly used as animals of war and all
killed off in the many wars in those times. It seems those ancient
"civilizations" may have been as uncivilized and warlike as our own.
David / Amicus
translated ancient records. If you do believe this, I doubt that you
believe that it means that he was a true prophet.>>
You're right! I'm Catholic. But from a Mormon perspective it seems to
me that whatever claim is made to justify the work and mission of Joseph
can also be made for James. In fact from my limited study there are
dozens of men claiming to be prophets in the same vein as Joseph Smith
and not just among the polygamists. The Temple Lot has several splinter
groups where prophets claim to receive messages from John the Baptist.
Gene Fuller
"father of peace" <srm...@absalom.org> wrote in message
news:113r2cd...@news.supernews.com...
>>See how fruitless speculation can be about things
>>that are not revealed?
>
> I guess that revelation to one is humbug
> to another.
Snip
You are to be commended for your incisive insight!
> What is your rank in the LDS church?
> That you feel compelled to correct me
> for what I have written. (Adapted from Curious Nancy)
How about "Active member in good standing". Can you or Curious Nancy match
it? Do you really have any desire to match it?
Dave
> Horses?!
> In pre-Columbian America?
>
> Can, open... Worms, all over the place! <g>
http://www.2s2.com/chapmanresearch/user/documents/horses.html
For those of you without a web browser:
"In the following reference from a book by T.L. Tanton. Geological Survey of
Canada Memoir 167-Fort Williams and Fort Arthur and Thunder Cape Map-Areas
,pp. I -222. Ottawa.1931: "Relics were discovered July. 1918. in an
excavation made by the Canada Car and Foundry Company about 80 feet north
from the turning basin. Westforl. About twelve bones of a mammal and a
finely made copper spearhead were found together about 40 feet below the
surface of the ground. The materials found were submitted to the Geological
Survey and Harlan l. Smith, archeologist, reported the results of
examination as follows .'.According to Mr. Lawrence I. Lambe, vertebrate
paleontologist of the Geological Survey and Mr. Sternherg, preparator of
paleontological specimens. the bone marked B 11 . . . is of a cloven-footed
animals. possibly a buffalo, or a specimen of domestic cattle.... Bones
marked B 10 and B 12 to B 13 inclusive, Mr. Lambe and Mr. Sternberg both
pronounced to be those of a horse and not petrified. Mr. Sternberg is
convinced that most of them belong to the same individual. The point with
the flanged tang made of copper marked C 1 is characteristic and typical of
prehistoric Indian handiwork.'
READ: pre-Columbian
Of course, human factual research aside, just look at the pictures. You
have to IGNORE FACT IN HAND to reject pre-Columbian hourses!
father of peace
>> What is your rank in the LDS church?
>> That you feel compelled to correct me
>> for what I have written. (Adapted from Curious Nancy)
>How about "Active member in good standing". Can you or Curious Nancy match
>it? Do you really have any desire to match it?
I thought Nancy's insight was one of the most
profound commentaties about s.r.m. that I have
ever read... All sorts of LdS people, having no
authority to say what is, or is not mormon
doctrine spouting off as if they are teaching
church doctrine, when in reality they are
teaching their own opinions.
Love,
Absalom
--
E. Mark Ping
Yes, horses. Horses (with hooves) were native to the American
continent. Current theory is that they died out about 8000 years ago.
We'll see what they say in another 50 years.
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
David / Amicus
Horses in the Book of Mormon - FARMS Papers
Address:http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=129&table=transcripts
Gene Fuller
I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I view
things from the perspective of a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints and not from the perspective of a generic "Mormon",
whatever that might include or exclude.As a member of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, I am also a Christian, a member of the Church
(called out ones) of Jesus Christ.
Having said that, I add that I know from Christian Scriptures that we can
expect false prophets to be among us in the latter-days, which we are in now
and so far as I am concerned have been for a couple of thousand years more
or less. I consider the latter-days to include all the time since the
resurrection of Jesus Christ. I have the Testimony to my spirit from the
Holy Spirit, that the pretenders to be successors of Joseph Smith as called
prophets of God are merely pretenders, unless their fruits prove them
otherwise. The fruits born by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints show to me that we are and have been led by a Prophet of God since
the start of the Restoration in the mid nineteenth century. These fruits are
not shown by any of the so called splinters or spin offs.
As a non-"Mormon" of any variety, I can see why from the perspective of such
a non-believer it may appear that the evidence for Joseph Smith is not
convincing. But that is all right, since Joseph Smith is not the Savior of
us all. That is the role of Jesus Christ. One or more of them, even all of
them, may be deceived or they may be malicious, but if they make conflicting
claims, not all of them can be correct in their claims and teaching. Again,
we can look at the results of their teachings and get some indication of
what is truth. Those outside cannot be expected to discern the difference.
That is not the way conversion happens. From the outside, as you say, all
claims are equally valid, or really appear to be equally invalid, since if
they were not considered invalid the persons outside would come inside and
join with us in celebrating God's Truth. I assume that a true and loyal
Roman Catholic believes that if the rest of us would only accept what they
(Roman Catholics) accept to be true, we would all join together in that
family.
Jeff
> Having said that, I add that I know from Christian Scriptures that we
can
> expect false prophets to be among us in the latter-days, which we are
in now
> and so far as I am concerned have been for a couple of thousand years
more
> or less. I consider the latter-days to include all the time since the
> resurrection of Jesus Christ. I have the Testimony to my spirit from
the
> Holy Spirit, that the pretenders to be successors of Joseph Smith as
called
> prophets of God are merely pretenders, unless their fruits prove them
> otherwise. The fruits born by The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day
> Saints show to me that we are and have been led by a Prophet of God
since
> the start of the Restoration in the mid nineteenth century. These
fruits are
> not shown by any of the so called splinters or spin offs.
>
When I looked at the Mormon Doctrines book by Bruce R. McConkie, he
wrote that the early Mormon Church leaders believed and taught that the
hill Cumorah in the Jaredite and Nephite destruction is one and the
same (in New York state).
When I looked at the Book of Mormon Reference Companion (a fairly
exhaustive collection of work from about 111 Mormon scholars I think)
from Deseret Books, it is said that there are 2 different Cumorah
hills.
One can either believe in the early Church leaders or these latter-day
scholars.
Since I think The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owns the
land belonging to this hill, some archaelogical work would solve this
difference of teaching.
Jeff
David / Amicus
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owns the land belonging to this hill,
some archaelogical work would solve this difference of teaching.>>
EXCELLENT POINT! I think it was BY or maybe OC who said there was a cave
in the hill where there were piles of plates all around and the sword of
Laban was on a table.
The pyramids have been x-rayed and searched. Shouldn't be too hard to
explore the hill in upper New York state.
Gene Fuller
> When I looked at the Mormon Doctrines book by Bruce R. McConkie, he
> wrote that the early Mormon Church leaders believed and taught that the
> hill Cumorah in the Jaredite and Nephite destruction is one and the
> same (in New York state).
Elder McConkie was not at the time he wrote "Mormon Doctrine or at any time
later in his life, the Prophet. He wrote his own belief based on a very
sharp mind, and much study. Did he cite which leaders believed and taught
that, and did he also cite some references to show that, or was it merely
his opinion (evenif based on much reading)? Did he cite any reasons that
they believed that, if they did? (Such as for example some direct
revelation?
We do not have a "catechism" which we are required to believe against
contrary evidence.
> When I looked at the Book of Mormon Reference Companion (a fairly
> exhaustive collection of work from about 111 Mormon scholars I think)
> from Deseret Books, it is said that there are 2 different Cumorah
> hills.
Was that stated as a dogma? Did it give citations of the locations of these
two hills? It is also not a required "catechism" for Latter-day Saints. I
believe Heavenly Father has designed us to consider information and then
with His guidance evaluate it and learn truth.
> One can either believe in the early Church leaders or these latter-day
> scholars.
Or for that matter, neither.
> Since I think The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owns the
> land belonging to this hill, some archaelogical work would solve this
> difference of teaching.
How? And why do we need to know that trifling bit of geography? Does your
(or my) salvation hinge on a bit of geography?
Gene Fuller
You have read the Book of Mormon? Read again Helaman 13 and Mormon 1. Do you
fancy that the God who made those things become slippery could not prevent
man's puny efforts from discovering a cave which may or may not have been in
a given hill at one time?
Jeff
> Elder McConkie was not at the time he wrote "Mormon Doctrine or at
any time
> later in his life, the Prophet. He wrote his own belief based on a
very
> sharp mind, and much study. Did he cite which leaders believed and
taught
> that, and did he also cite some references to show that, or was it
merely
> his opinion (evenif based on much reading)? Did he cite any reasons
that
> they believed that, if they did? (Such as for example some direct
> revelation?
>
Elder McConkie quoted a Journal of Discourse. I don't have it in front
of me right now, but I will supply it as soon as I have it.
I think the early Church leaders believed that because of some other
unwritten revelation to them or by the passage in Ether (9:3). "And
the Lord warned Omer in a dream that he should depart out of the land;
wherefore Omer departed out of the land with his family, and traveled
many days, and came over and passed by the hill of Shim, and came over
by the place where the Nephites were destroyed, and from thence
eastward, and came to a place which was called Ablom, by the seashore,
and there he pitched his tent, and also his sons and his daughters, and
all his household, save it were Jared and his family".
As far as the context of the book of Ether goes, the land is
Desolation. The place where the Nephites were destroyed was Cumorah.
Jeff
Jeff
> Elder McConkie was not at the time he wrote "Mormon Doctrine or at
any time
> later in his life, the Prophet.
Here is another reference in addition to Ether (9:3):
Ether (15:11) - "And it came to pass that the army of Coriantumr did
pitch their tents by the hill Ramah; and it was that same hill where my
father Mormon did hide up the records unto the Lord, which were
sacred".
The footnote for this points to 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 sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites,
(for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out
of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records
which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were
these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.
The hill Ramah is the same hill Cumorah in the land of Cumorah ... in
the land of Desolation (which is the context of Ether). View my last
post too.
Jeff
Gene Fuller
> Gene Fuller wrote:
Snip
> Elder McConkie quoted a Journal of Discourse. I don't have it in front
> of me right now, but I will supply it as soon as I have it.
So that means he did indeed cite at least one source which he had read in
forming his opinion. Of course the Journal of Discourses is not one of the
Standard Works. So it represents individual understanding as well.
Jeff
I did elaborate further in my last post that these 3 verses from the
standard works would however confirm their understanding - Ether (9:3,
15:11) and Mormon (6:6).
Jeff
Gene Fuller
> Gene Fuller wrote:
>> "Jeff" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1145olh...@news.supernews.com...
Snip
> I did elaborate further in my last post that these 3 verses from the
> standard works would however confirm their understanding - Ether (9:3,
> 15:11) and Mormon (6:6).
I am sorry, but I guess I have forgotten what we are discussing. If all you
are trying to do is to argue that several places named and discussed in the
Book of Mormon are close together, that was never a problem for me. I
thought the discussion was whether the Hill Cumorah in New York State,
continent of North America is identical with some other hill whose exact
geographic location I believe to be undisclosed as yet. Citing numerous
references as to how various places known to Book of Mormon peoples are
related geographically to each other is of not significance whatever in
showing how they are related to other locations mentioned in the time from
1820 to the present.
Jeff
> I am sorry, but I guess I have forgotten what we are discussing. If
all you
> are trying to do is to argue that several places named and discussed
in the
> Book of Mormon are close together, that was never a problem for me. I
> thought the discussion was whether the Hill Cumorah in New York
State,
> continent of North America is identical with some other hill whose
exact
> geographic location I believe to be undisclosed as yet. Citing
numerous
> references as to how various places known to Book of Mormon peoples
are
> related geographically to each other is of not significance whatever
in
> showing how they are related to other locations mentioned in the time
from
> 1820 to the present.
I had posted an incorrect reference to Jospeh Smith's testimony about
Cumorah.
He and others believed that the hill Ramah and Cumorah are the same
hill. The Jaredites and Nephites were destroyed in the same general
region where Moroni hid up the plates.
This is from Mormon Doctrine page 175. "Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery,
and many of the early brethren, who were familiar with all the
circumstances attending the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in this
dispensation, have left us POINTED TESTIMONY as to the identity and
location of Cumorah and Ramah" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol.3, pp.
232-241).
It's unfortunate that the Book of Mormon Reference Companion guide does
not include the history of their pointed testimony.
Jeff
Gene Fuller
> Gene Fuller wrote:
Snip
Snip
> I had posted an incorrect reference to Jospeh Smith's testimony about
> Cumorah.
I see.
> He and others believed that the hill Ramah and Cumorah are the same
> hill. The Jaredites and Nephites were destroyed in the same general
> region where Moroni hid up the plates.
You make that claim. I am not sure of that from any of my own reading, (at
least any that I recall) of anything that he said or wrote, that we have
from his own lips or pen. I am not sure at this point in time what it would
take to make me sure of this.
I do find in the Book of Mormon, indications that Cumorah and Rama were two
names used for the same hill. I find in some of the references indications
that Joseph seemed to bellieve that a skeleton found on the way west from
Kirtland (I believe) was that of a warrior killed in one of the old battles.
and a chain of reasoning that might indicate that the Hill Cumorah in New
York was that same Ramah as in the Book of Mormon. But I do not find any
evidence of a declared revelation to that effect by any prophet while he was
alive and called as "The Prophet" to the world and the Church.
, > This is from Mormon Doctrine page 175. "Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery,
> and many of the early brethren, who were familiar with all the
> circumstances attending the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in this
> dispensation, have left us POINTED TESTIMONY as to the identity and
> location of Cumorah and Ramah" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol.3, pp.
> 232-241).
Yes, But Elder McConkie was not at any time the Prophet, and in the book
"Mormon Doctrine" he was as I recall not even an Apostle at the time he
wrote it. He also used a lot of ideas similar to those of Joseph Fielding
Smith prior to the time that Elder Smith was President Smith, thus prior to
the time he was "The Prophet" and therefor was not authorised to establish
doctrine, notwithstanding that he wrote a book called "Doctrines of
Salvation" Because of his intellect and his position of respect in the
Church, I am bound to consider his ideas. But unless they are revelations, I
am not bound to accept them as such.
It still aperas to me to be the case that the hill(s) called Cumorah and
Ramah in the Book of Mormon may well be the same hill, just referred to by
different names by different peoples, and that they may be identical with
the Hill Cumorah in the state of New York, USA. There is a chain of
reasoning to support such a belief, but not proof positve.
> It's unfortunate that the Book of Mormon Reference Companion guide does
> not include the history of their pointed testimony.
I still am not acquainted with the Book of Mormon Reference Companion, and
therefore have no assessment of it "scholarship". However, even those as
late as Elder Joseph Fielding Smith and his son-in law Elder Bruce R.
McConkie did not seem to employ the same degree of rigor in their references
as current "scholarship" demands. I know of no religious belief that can be
definitely proved, when it comes right down to "it". That is where faith
comes in. We all vary in our faith, I think. We also all vary in what we
think is essential to our faith, and what might destroy it.
Jeff
> But I do not find any
> evidence of a declared revelation to that effect by any prophet while
he was
> alive and called as "The Prophet" to the world and the Church.
There are many things taught by many churches of all flavours without a
declared revelation.
> > This is from Mormon Doctrine page 175. "Joseph Smith, Oliver
Cowdery,
> > and many of the early brethren, who were familiar with all the
> > circumstances attending the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in
this
> > dispensation, have left us POINTED TESTIMONY as to the identity and
> > location of Cumorah and Ramah" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol.3, pp.
> > 232-241).
>
> Yes, But Elder McConkie was not at any time the Prophet, and in the
book
> "Mormon Doctrine" he was as I recall not even an Apostle at the time
he
> wrote it.
If Bruce McConkie's record of their pointed testimony is untrue, I
trust the Mormon church would have clearly labelled this as a falsehood
to protect some of its membership, who are familiar with this passage,
from believing a lie.
> I still am not acquainted with the Book of Mormon Reference
Companion, and
> therefore have no assessment of it "scholarship".
See http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=100062501. It
touts about 111 scholars of the Church.
>I know of no religious belief that can be
> definitely proved, when it comes right down to "it". That is where
faith
> comes in. We all vary in our faith, I think.
I agree. We all vary in our faith. But I believe we can know for sure
that Christ's resurrection is true. The New Testament is the result of
it.
Jeff
Wm. Marks
> Gene Fuller wrote:
>
>>But I do not find any
>>evidence of a declared revelation to that effect by any prophet while
>>he was alive and called as "The Prophet" to the world and the Church.
>
> There are many things taught by many churches of all flavours without a
> declared revelation.
This would actually seem to prove Gene's point, rather than yours.
There are any number of things taught by any number of churches
based upon the best understanding of man.
Wm.
E. Mark Ping
Jeff <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>If Bruce McConkie's record of their pointed testimony is untrue, I
>trust the Mormon church would have clearly labelled this as a
>falsehood to protect some of its membership, who are familiar with
>this passage, from believing a lie.
What you think has nothing to do with it. McConkie said he took full
responsibility for the work at the beginning of the book. It was his
work, not the church's. He never claimed it to be anything other than
his own work.
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Jeff
> This would actually seem to prove Gene's point, rather than yours.
> There are any number of things taught by any number of churches
> based upon the best understanding of man.
>
> Wm.
Let's hope that this best understanding of man is based on the Holy
Spirit's teaching and inspiration.
Jeff
Gene Fuller
> Wm. Marks wrote:
>> There are any number of things taught by any number of churches
>> based upon the best understanding of man.
>>
>> Wm.
>
> Let's hope that this best understanding of man is based on the Holy
> Spirit's teaching and inspiration.
There is not even a promise of that anywhere other than in the Restored
Church, and even here we cannot rely on it unless it comes from one who has
been set apart to receive inspiration. (With the exception that Heavenly
Father can give inspiration to anyone He desires to give it to, for his/her
own guidance.) That is the entire reason that the Church and its doctrines
needed to be restored.
Jeff
> There is not even a promise of that anywhere other than in the
Restored
> Church, and even here we cannot rely on it unless it comes from one
who has
> been set apart to receive inspiration. (With the exception that
Heavenly
> Father can give inspiration to anyone He desires to give it to, for
his/her
> own guidance.) That is the entire reason that the Church and its
doctrines
> needed to be restored.
While it is evident that false doctrine crept into the early church
(the apostles warned about it), there is no indication that any of
Christ's message disappeared from off the face of the earth. There are
many passages in the scriptures which say, "Heaven and earth shall pass
away: but my words shall not pass away". Luke (21:33) is one example.
Jesus said also to Peter, "That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it" (Matthew 16:18). These words of Jesus unfortunately do not however
prevent some from believing that the gates of hell did prevail against
His Church not only once but several times throughout human history (at
least according to what the Gospel Principles handbook says).
I believe that the true church of Christ is not some organization but
it is rather a body of believers who worship God in spirit and in
truth.
Jeff
David Bowie
> Jeff <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>If Bruce McConkie's record of their pointed testimony is untrue, I
>>trust the Mormon church would have clearly labelled this as a
>>falsehood to protect some of its membership, who are familiar with
>>this passage, from believing a lie.
> What you think has nothing to do with it. McConkie said he took full
> responsibility for the work at the beginning of the book. It was his
> work, not the church's. He never claimed it to be anything other than
> his own work.
Although, unfortunately, some others have apparently not agreed with the
author.
David, who wants to see a verifiable edition comparison
--
David Bowie http://pmpkn.net/lx
Jeanne's Two Laws of Chocolate: If there is no chocolate in the
house, there is too little; some must be purchased. If there is
chocolate in the house, there is too much; it must be consumed.
David Bowie
> Gene Fuller wrote:
>> There is not even a promise of that anywhere other than in the
>> Restored Church, and even here we cannot rely on it unless it comes
>> from one who has been set apart to receive inspiration. (With the
>> exception that Heavenly Father can give inspiration to anyone He
>> desires to give it to, for his/her own guidance.) That is the
>> entire reason that the Church and its doctrines needed to be
>> restored.
> While it is evident that false doctrine crept into the early church
> (the apostles warned about it), there is no indication that any of
> Christ's message disappeared from off the face of the earth. There
> are many passages in the scriptures which say, "Heaven and earth
> shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away". Luke (21:33) is
> one example...
Since when does that statement necessitate that there was never a
general apostasy? Jesus's words would still be in effect, even if nobody
believed them, after all.
> ...Jesus said also to Peter, "That thou art Peter, and upon
> this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not
> prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). These words of Jesus
> unfortunately do not however prevent some from believing that the
> gates of hell did prevail against His Church not only once but
> several times throughout human history (at least according to what
> the Gospel Principles handbook says).
The general Mormon interpretation of that scripture is that "this rock"
does not refer to "my church" in that verse, so this argument is not
convincing--not to mention that if that following is correct
> I believe that the true church of Christ is not some organization but
> it is rather a body of believers who worship God in spirit and in
> truth.
(and i agree with you more than you might think) then you can't use Matt
16:18 to support your argument against a general apostasy, at least not
without denying an active afterlife.
David, recognizing that "church" has multiple accurate definition
Gene Fuller
> Gene Fuller wrote:
Snip
> While it is evident that false doctrine crept into the early church
> (the apostles warned about it), there is no indication that any of
> Christ's message disappeared from off the face of the earth.
Of course the absence of some of the things taught by Jesus Christ could
hardly be noticed if they were no longer believed and/or taught.Not that
this is in the same league, but until the words "cumom" and "curelom"
appeared in the mid nineteenth century, how many people missed the presence
of these animals on the earth? Until various doctrines concerning the Temple
were restored how many people missed them, of if they were missed, how many
people recognized what it was that was missing?
> There are
> many passages in the scriptures which say, "Heaven and earth shall pass
> away: but my words shall not pass away".
True. And His word has not passed away. It has (had) been taken from the
earth or at least from unbelieving and wicked man. It had not passed away in
the sense of ceasing to exist. If it had ceased to exist it could hardly
have been restored throgh Joseph Smith.
Luke (21:33) is one example.
> Jesus said also to Peter, "That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
> will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
> it" (Matthew 16:18).
Was this identifying Simon as the rock, and promising, as I am told the
Roman Catholics believe, that the Church is to be built on the rock of
Simon?
> These words of Jesus unfortunately do not however
> prevent some from believing that the gates of hell did prevail against
> His Church not only once but several times throughout human history (at
> least according to what the Gospel Principles handbook says).
You and thousands of others seem to believe that "the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it" means that the gates of hell shall not destroy it.
Well, the Church has not been destroyed. The full truth was taken away from
among men, yes. According to the plan of the Father. Jesus Christ was (and
is) Himself the embodiment of the fullness of the Truth of God. The gates of
hell, (death) did not prevail against Him. His body was in the grave for
something less than three days, and during that time His Spirit went about
accomplishing what He was assigned to accomplish at that time. In due time,
He returned to the presence of His (Our) Father and He will come again,
bringing with Him many of His own, who have already been redeemed from hell
(the grave)
I suggest you poder and pray about the meaning of the passage you cite, "the
depths of hell shall not prevail".
>
> I believe that the true church of Christ is not some organization but
> it is rather a body of believers who worship God in spirit and in
> truth.
Yes, I can agree to that. I am sure, however, that the words represent
different concepts to you than they do to me.
I also am curious about what your personal belief that sounds pretty main
stream "Christian" has to do with "soc.religion.mormon" other than in
contention that Latter-day Saints are wrong.
Jeff
> Not that
> this is in the same league, but until the words "cumom" and "curelom"
> appeared in the mid nineteenth century, how many people missed the
presence
> of these animals on the earth? Until various doctrines concerning the
Temple
> were restored how many people missed them, of if they were missed,
how many
> people recognized what it was that was missing?
>
I may have seen a cumom or curelom in my lifetime even though I didn't
know what it was at the time.
Speaking about restoring, why is proxy baptism for the dead missing
from the Book of Mormon? When Joseph Smith spoke about seeing his
brother Alvin in the celestial kingdom without baptized while alive, he
didn't know about the existence of baptism for the dead. Why is
exaltation to Godhood missing from the Book of Mormon? Why is the
teaching about a Heavenly Mother goddess missing?
> > Jesus said also to Peter, "That thou art Peter, and upon this rock
I
> > will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against
> > it" (Matthew 16:18).
>
> Was this identifying Simon as the rock, and promising, as I am told
the
> Roman Catholics believe, that the Church is to be built on the rock
of
> Simon?
>
Catholics believe this.
I believe that the rock is the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the
incarnate son and image of the living God.
Jeff
Gene Fuller
Snip
> I may have seen a cumom or curelom in my lifetime even though I didn't
> know what it was at the time.
Indeed you may have seen such creatures. They may be plentiful in some
lands, but know as something else.
> Speaking about restoring, why is proxy baptism for the dead missing
> from the Book of Mormon?
Without intending to offend, that is a "no-brainer". The Book of Mormon
consists mainly of the things that were experienced by the people who were
the recorders of it. The people who wrote about these experiences had, it
would appear, not had this part of the plan revealed to them. Perhaps the
reason for that was that it was not yet time for that in God's Eternal plan.
Perhaps the reason was something else entirely, such as that perhaps the
priesthood in its fulness was not present.
> When Joseph Smith spoke about seeing his
> brother Alvin in the celestial kingdom without baptized while alive, he
> didn't know about the existence of baptism for the dead.
That seems like a reasonable thought. <G>
> Why is
> exaltation to Godhood missing from the Book of Mormon? Why is the
> teaching about a Heavenly Mother goddess missing?
I think the answers to these questions are the same as the answer I gave for
the first question. However, the idea of exaltation is definitely included
in the New Testament of the Bible. One very pointed verse, I leaned to
answer a roll call in a Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental) meetin in Japan
about 1952, It is 1 John 3:2
"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we
shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for
we shall see him as he is."
Certainly most "Christians" believe on some level that Jesus has been
exalted, and He claimed for Hiself that if you have seen Him you have seen
God. What does that (couple with 1 John 3:2, lead to?
>> > Jesus said also to Peter, "That thou art Peter, and upon this rock
> I
>> > will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
> against
>> > it" (Matthew 16:18).
>>
>> Was this identifying Simon as the rock, and promising, as I am told
> the
>> Roman Catholics believe, that the Church is to be built on the rock
> of
>> Simon?
>>
>
> Catholics believe this.
I am glad you agree that I was correct that I understand Roman Catholics
believe this. I would have to assume, however, that even if we agree that
they believe it, we might disagree with each other as to what it means to
them, and they might disagree with both of us as to what we think it means
to them.
> I believe that the rock is the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the
> incarnate son and image of the living God.
That is, of course, true. But how do you know it? I claim that if you indeed
know it, if indeed I know it, if indeed anyone knows it, it was because that
truth was revealed to us from our Father in Heaven. This is made clear to me
in the preceding verse,
Jeff
> > When Joseph Smith spoke about seeing his
> > brother Alvin in the celestial kingdom without baptized while
alive, he
> > didn't know about the existence of baptism for the dead.
>
> That seems like a reasonable thought. <G>
>
Since Joseph Smith and the early Latter-day Saints had access to the
Bible, and it is believed by some that the Bible reveals baptism for
the dead, why didn't they practice this ordinance like it is believed
the early apostles did? Wasn't the Mormon Church patterned after the
church of Christ?
Jeff
Gene Fuller
Snip
> Since Joseph Smith and the early Latter-day Saints had access to the
> Bible, and it is believed by some that the Bible reveals baptism for
> the dead, why didn't they practice this ordinance like it is believed
> the early apostles did? Wasn't the Mormon Church patterned after the
> church of Christ?
I cannot answer that question since again, you are speaking of a "Mormon|
Church". I know of none.
Joseph Smith did not have authority to perform baptism for those who have
died until it was specifically restored.
Nathan
This is an important point. You see, Joseph Smith didn't go
searching the Bible for elements of the church Christ set up
anciently, and then invent a church containing those elements.
He did what the Lord told him to do. The Lord restored the
doctrine, authority, and ordinances in the time frame He thought
proper.
The Bible certainly *mentions* baptism for the dead, but I don't
think it "reveals" it. It lacks clear explanations of the subject.
Just another reason the Bible couldn't be used as a manual for
recreating the primitive church. Besides, restoration requires
an actual dispensation of revelation and authority from God.
Jeff
> Joseph Smith did not have authority to perform baptism for those who
have
> died until it was specifically restored.
Since the knowledge of baptism for the dead is supposedly said to be
found in the Bible, what specifically needed to be restored by Joseph
Smith?
What do you mean when you say "Joseph Smith did not have authority"?
Since he gave a revelation that his brother Alvin was in the celestial
kingdom without a baptism and that others who died without a knowledge
of the gospel were in the celestial kingdom too (D&C 137:7), would you
agree with me that no proxy baptism was ever done for these people
afterwards?
Jeff
David / Amicus
Book of Lehi or on the plates that JS was not allowed to translate?
Jeff Shirton
news:114p4gd...@news.supernews.com...
> The Bible certainly *mentions* baptism for the dead, but I don't
> think it "reveals" it. It lacks clear explanations of the subject.
> Just another reason the Bible couldn't be used as a manual for
> recreating the primitive church.
???
I'm sorry, but I simply don't see how that follows.
Why is it that you think the Bible needs to have a "clear explanation"
of Baptism for the dead, in order to be used as a church manual?
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot
ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"[T]he gospel is not that man can become god,
but that God became a man." -- James White
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!
Jeff
> The Bible certainly *mentions* baptism for the dead, but I don't
> think it "reveals" it. It lacks clear explanations of the subject.
> Just another reason the Bible couldn't be used as a manual for
> recreating the primitive church. Besides, restoration requires
> an actual dispensation of revelation and authority from God.
Would you show me from the accepted scriptures of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints the passages which give us a "clear
explanation" of the subject "proxy baptism for the dead" with all the
actions performed in the ceremony and the corresponding words to be
said?
Jeff
David / Amicus
Aren't there three degrees in the CK? The highest would be for those who
have gone through all the rites and rituals either in their life here on
earth or by someone who did the proxy work for them after they died?
Maybe those in the other two departments of the CK are for those who
accepted the Gospel in the afterlife and are just waiting for someone to
do the proxy work for them so they can move on up to the highest part of
the CK?
Btw is there any record that the proxy work has ever been done for
Alvin?
Nathan
This is precisely my point! The written words of previous prophets
are insufficient, in order to know what must be done in Christ's
church. We must have actual, continued revelation.
The ordinances of salvation are being performed correctly and
with divine authority in the church today, not because somebody
once wrote down all the actions and words, but because a prophet
of God presides over the church. He holds the necessary keys and
receives the revelations to keep things running the way the Lord
wants.
Nathan
> "Nathan" <nts...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:114p4gd...@news.supernews.com...
>
> > The Bible certainly *mentions* baptism for the dead, but I don't
> > think it "reveals" it. It lacks clear explanations of the subject.
> > Just another reason the Bible couldn't be used as a manual for
> > recreating the primitive church.
>
> ???
>
> I'm sorry, but I simply don't see how that follows.
>
> Why is it that you think the Bible needs to have a "clear
> explanation" of Baptism for the dead, in order to be used as a
> church manual?
If someone were to go through the Bible and set up a church
implementing all practices and doctrines as taught therein, the
resulting institution would still be far from the church Christ
founded. The Bible is simply missing too many details. Heck, how
many times have people tried doing this exact thing?
This is a vital part of the concept of restoration. Only God can bring
back His church, not only because He has to authorize it, but also
because unassisted men always get it wrong.
Jeff
> > Would you show me from the accepted scriptures of The Church of
Jesus
> > Christ of Latter-day Saints the passages which give us a "clear
> > explanation" of the subject "proxy baptism for the dead" with all
the
> > actions performed in the ceremony and the corresponding words to be
> > said?
>
> This is precisely my point! The written words of previous prophets
> are insufficient, in order to know what must be done in Christ's
> church. We must have actual, continued revelation.
>
In a previous addition to this thread, you mentioned that the Bible
lacked a clear explanation of this topic, but you made no inclusion of
the LDS scriptures.
Why?
According to http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/intro, the Doctrine and
Covenants is a collection of divine revelations and inspired
declarations given for the establishment and regulation of the kingdom
of God on the earth in the last days.
So where is the actual and continued revelation to The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints in regards to proxy baptism for the dead?
Jeff
Nathan
> Nathan wrote:
> > > Would you show me from the accepted scriptures of The Church of
> > > Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the passages which give us
> > > a "clear explanation" of the subject "proxy baptism for the
> > > dead" with all the actions performed in the ceremony and the
> > > corresponding words to be said?
> >
> > This is precisely my point! The written words of previous prophets
> > are insufficient, in order to know what must be done in Christ's
> > church. We must have actual, continued revelation.
> >
>
> In a previous addition to this thread, you mentioned that the Bible
> lacked a clear explanation of this topic, but you made no inclusion
> of the LDS scriptures.
The LDS scriptures other than the Bible, you mean.
> Why?
The Bible explicitly mentions baptism for the dead only once, with
no explanation given of what this means. The Doctrine and Covenants
has clear explanations of the basic doctrinal principles involved in
ordinance work for the dead. See especially sections 127 and 128.
> According to http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/intro, the Doctrine and
> Covenants is a collection of divine revelations and inspired
> declarations given for the establishment and regulation of the
> kingdom of God on the earth in the last days.
And so it is.
> So where is the actual and continued revelation to The Church of
> Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in regards to proxy baptism for
> the dead?
So you want every detail to be in the scriptures?
Why not apply the same standard to the only scripture you accept?
For the third time, my point is that the written word is insufficient.
God's prophet receives revelation for the direction of the church.
Not all of this revelation is written down in "scripture".
But, "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now
reveal,..." etc.
John S. Colton
[snip]
>According to http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/intro, the Doctrine and
>Covenants is a collection of divine revelations and inspired
>declarations given for the establishment and regulation of the kingdom
>of God on the earth in the last days.
>
>So where is the actual and continued revelation to The Church of Jesus
>Christ of Latter-day Saints in regards to proxy baptism for the dead?
Baptism for the dead is discussed in sections 124, 127, 128, and a tad
in 138. The *words* used in the ceremony are not listed in the D&C,
but then again neither are the words used in the other temple
ceremonies.
John
*****
John's newsgroup motto:
"A soft answer turneth away wrath:
but grievous words stir up anger." --Prov. 15:1
*****
Jeff Shirton
>> Why is it that you think the Bible needs to have a "clear
>> explanation" of Baptism for the dead, in order to be used as a
>> church manual?
>
> If someone were to go through the Bible and set up a church
> implementing all practices and doctrines as taught therein, the
> resulting institution would still be far from the church Christ
> founded.
On what basis do you draw that conclusion?
Or do you mean, "the resulting institution would still be far
from the LDS church, which LDS believe is the church Christ
founded"?
Because if you're not assuming "a priori" that the LDS church
is the way Christ's church is supposed to be run, I don't see
how you can possibly draw the conclusion that you do.
> The Bible is simply missing too many details.
You seem to be only reasserting your opinion, rather
than giving evidence to support your view. Why should
I (or anyone else) accept your theory that "the Bible
is simply missing too many details"?
> Heck, how many times have people tried doing this exact thing?
Your point is unclear.
Perhaps you could elaborate more on what you mean,
and why you (presumably) think they have failed.
> This is a vital part of the concept of restoration. Only God
> can bring back His church,
I believe it was never "gone", to have to "bring back".
> not only because He has to authorize it, but also
> because unassisted men always get it wrong.
Why do you think man is doing it "unassisted"?
That seems to be another assumption that came out
of nowhere.
Gene Fuller
> Gene Fuller wrote:
>> Joseph Smith did not have authority to perform baptism for those who
> have
>> died until it was specifically restored.
>
> Since the knowledge of baptism for the dead is supposedly said to be
> found in the Bible, what specifically needed to be restored by Joseph
> Smith?
Read again what I said in the first paragraph that you quoted. What
specifically had to be restored to earth through God's Prophet was
authority. Joseph and Oliver had been given authority through John the
Baptist to perform baptism of the living, but furhter instruction and
authority had to be granted before it would be possible to perform that
ordinance in behalf of those who were no longer living in the flesh.
> What do you mean when you say "Joseph Smith did not have authority"?
Which part do you not undersand? You have been visiting this site for some
time now. Do you understand that The Church of Jesus Christ teaches and its
members in general believe that one of the principle differences between the
Church and other groups is that authoity to act for and in the name of God
was taken from the earth within decades after the crucifxion of Jesus and
the departure of all the Apostles who had that authority? The earth remained
in general without such authority for hundreds of years until God restored
what we have now a bit at a time by sending messengers to Joseph to restore
it. Even after the authoirty to perform proxy ordinances for the dead,
further instruction was needed and was revealed to Joseph, for example, that
men were to officiate for me and women to women. More instruction was given
regarding the kind of records to be kept. This is a fairly interesting
subject in itself.
A few years ago, I attended a service of ordination of the man who had been
"pastoring" the little country church that my mother was attending. He had
been their pastor for several months. He had worked at the same
manufacturing plant that my father had worked ar previously, and now that he
children were grown and away from home, his financial situation was in
better shape and he had apparently felt "called" to the ministry for some
time and now was free to answer the call. The little church was sithout a
pastor, and hired him. He served for some time with no ordination or
"license" per se. Then he felt a desire for more authority, as I think he
understood it, and felt that to be ordained by the "conference" officials of
which the little local church was a part, would confer that authoirty.
I had never seen a protestant ordination, Mother wanted to attend, so we
went. It was intersting. Whe it was all over I had no reason to believe that
he had any more authority than he had possessed before hand. I don't know
how he felt about it, but I assume he felt more authorized than before. At
least he was more authoirzed by his denomination. Was he more authoirzed by
God? I see no reason that he would be. Of course his denomination had no
authority to approve his aacting on behalf of God. We do, provided that God
has first given it to us.
> Since he gave a revelation that his brother Alvin was in the celestial
> kingdom without a baptism and that others who died without a knowledge
> of the gospel were in the celestial kingdom too (D&C 137:7), would you
> agree with me that no proxy baptism was ever done for these people
> afterwards?
Of course I would not. That revelation did not really put a time on itself.
He "saw" that in due course these people would be in the Celestial Kingdom.
But there is nothing that indicates to me that there was a window, at it
were, opened for him to see into the Celestial Kingdom at the precise second
he was receiving this light and knowledge.
Amicus asked this evening if anyone knew whether the Temple Ordinances had
ever been performed for Alvin Smith, the Prophet's Brother. I checked the
Ordinance Index and found that indeed they have, several times. I think the
first baptism I found was performed in 1840 while his endowment and sealing
to his parents came later. One record I found was, I think 1877. There may
have been earlier ones. Of course that is inefficient and duplicative, but
such things still happen, even given the much improved systems of
communication and record keeping and sharing we now have.
Jeff
> Amicus asked this evening if anyone knew whether the Temple
Ordinances had
> ever been performed for Alvin Smith, the Prophet's Brother. I checked
the
> Ordinance Index and found that indeed they have, several times. I
think the
> first baptism I found was performed in 1840 while his endowment and
sealing
> to his parents came later. One record I found was, I think 1877.
There may
> have been earlier ones. Of course that is inefficient and
duplicative, but
> such things still happen, even given the much improved systems of
> communication and record keeping and sharing we now have.
That's a fair statement about the improved system of communication and
record keeping. I can accept that.
But what of the passage D&C (137:7)? "Thus came the voice of the Lord
unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel,
who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall
be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God".
Do you believe that Joseph's Smith's words "who would have received it
if they had been permitted to tarry" is indicative of his belief with
Alma (in his many teachings of a prepartory/probationary state and
Moroni (8:22), that they are saved without proxy baptism or any other
labour?
Even if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had an improved
system of communication and record keeping, it could never be able to
account for all the unknown people mentioned by the "all" in D&C
(137:7).
Do you agree?
Jeff