A Plan for Salvation – Part I

From time to time we receive a question or comment that requires more of an answer than a brief statement, so we dedicate an entire post (article) or even a series to do the answer justice. The following is one such case: 
    Comment: “I read on a website that “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” And that “The "curse of Cain" resulted in Cain being cut off from the presence of the Lord. The Genesis and Moses accounts both attest to this. The Book of Mormon teaches this principle in general when it speaks about those who keep the commandments will prosper in the land, while those who don't will be cut off from the presence off the Lord. This type of curse was applied to the Lamanites when they rejected the teachings of the prophets. The exact nature of the "mark" of Cain, on the other hand, is unknown. The scriptures don't say specifically what it was, except that it was for Cain's protection, so that those finding him wouldn't slay him. Many people, both in an out of the Church, have assumed that the mark and the curse are the same thing.” What is your take on all this?” Carlson S.

Response: We live in a different world than that of the past. Political correctness today demands certain behavior and attitudes or the disfavor of people, critics, and media come down hard upon the individual, group or people. What the Lord had in mind when “the Lord did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them” (2 Nephi 5:21) is a question regarding the Nephites that has wrought numerous answers for years. Nephi said only that it was done to keep the Lamanites from becoming “enticing unto my people” and Moses said the mark placed upon Cain was to protect him. In fact, Cain bemoaned the fact that “whoever finds me will kill me" (Genesis 4:13-14), to which God responded, "Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him" (Genesis 4:15-16).
    The Hebrew word translated "mark" is אוֹת ('owth) and refers to a portent—a sign or signal, i.e.,  “distinguishing mark, miraculous sign, omen or warning.” It can also mean “token, ensign, standard, miracle, or proof.” Of the 79 times in 77 verses of the Hebrew Scriptures, 'owth is used 43 times for “sign” and 30 times for “signs,” and once each for banners, omens, pledge, standards, witness and wondrous. It is found in Genesis  (6 times), Exodus (15), Numbers (5), Deuteronomy (12), Joshua (3), 1 Samuel (4), 2 Kings (3), Psalms (7), Isaiah (11), Jeremiah (4), Ezekiel (4), and once each in Judges, Nehemiah, and Job.
    So, the Hebrew word does not identify the exact nature of the mark God put on Cain as stated in the Bible. Whatever it was, it was a sign or indicator that Cain was not to be killed. Some propose that the mark was a scar, or some kind of tattoo, but most today reject that it was a black skin; however, Nephi definitely tells us that the mark on the Lamanaites was a black skin (2 Nephi 5:21).
    Whatever the case, the precise nature of the mark in Genesis is not the focus of the passage. The focus is that God would not allow people to exact vengeance against Cain because of his evil and his whining complaint that he would not survive God’s curse. Whatever the mark on Cain was, it evidently served the purpose of others not killing him. Nor should we interpret this to mean that God was protecting Cain despite his evil in killing his brother. Cain was undoubtedly punished severely by the curse and mark placed upon the man who committed the first murder.
    In the past, many believed the mark on Cain to be dark skin—that God changed the color of Cain's skin to black in order to identify him. Since Cain also received a curse, the belief that the mark was black skin caused many to believe that people of dark skin were cursed. Many used the “mark of Cain” teaching as a justification for the African slave trade and discrimination against people with black or dark skin. On the other hand, nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures is 'owth used to refer to skin color. The curse on Cain in Genesis chapter 4 was on Cain himself.

In the 3^rd century, the Greek scholar and early Christian theologian, (left) Origen Adamantius (184-253 AD), a prolific writer, claimed “Ham’s discolored posterity and the ignobility of the race he fathered” (Origen, "Genesis Homily XVI," in Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, translated by Ronald E. Heine (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1982), p. 215, referenced in Haynes.)
    Unlike many church fathers, he was never canonized as a saint because some of his teachings directly contradicted the teachings attributed to the apostles, notably the Apostles Paul and John, particularly his teachings on the pre-existence of souls, the final reconciliation of all creatures, including perhaps even the devil (the apokatasis) and the subordination of God the Son to God the Father, were extremely controversial.
    In LDS doctrine, there has never been an attitude that certain people in mortality were punished for their pre-mortal behavior, or that there were “fence sitters” during the war between God and Satan. On the contrary, it has always been taught that all who earned the right to come to this earth were valiant in their defense and participation during that controversy. The problem sometimes arose when people decided on their own that such was not the case. Punishment, to the extent God reserves the right to do so with his children, is not a debatable issue. 
    As he told Moses "Now go, lead the people to the place I have spoken unto thee; behold, mine Angel shall go before three; nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them" (Exodus 32:34), or Paul speaking to the Romans "But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God" (Romans 2:5); or as Jeremiah proclaimed: "Now the Lord hath brought it, and done according as he hath said: because ye have sinned against the Lord, and have not obeyed his voice, therefore this thing is come upon you" (Jeremiah 40:3); and Isaiah put it this way: "And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible" (Isaiah 13:11).

To Moses, he added, "Thus you are to know in your heart that the Lord your God was disciplining you just as a man disciplines his son" (Deuteronomy 8:5)—therefore, it is not up to man, to any of us, to question the edicts of God, his punishment of the wicked, or his lack of reward for those who do not live up to his commandments. What we have in this life, we earned from our behavior in the previous one. One of the problems mankind faces today is their lack of understanding of the fact that God will punish those who do not live up to the level of his requirements, who disobeys him, who falls short of the performance he asks of us—for it is to our advantage to learn obedience and live by ever word that precedes out of his mouth. Some people consider punishment for their actions as being wrong and, evidently, that God does not have that right, however, we find he does and reason for it ""I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men" (2 Samuel 7:14), and Luke put it this way, ""Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able" (Luke 13:24-28). The stages of our lives have always been working toward being able to enter that narrow door and into the eternal sphere to dwell in the presence of God and be like Him.
    During the pre-mortal ages we dwelt in the presence of God, the Father, and not only developed our various characteristics and showed our worthiness and ability, or the lack of it, but we were also where such progress could be observed. It is reasonable to believe that there was a type of Church organization there. The heavenly beings were living in a perfectly arranged society. Every person knew his place. Priesthood, without any question, had been conferred and the leaders were chosen to officiate. Ordinances pertaining to that pre-mortal existence were required and the love of God prevailed. Under such conditions it was natural for our Father to discern and choose those who were most worthy and evaluate the talents of each individual. He knew not only what each of us could do, but what each of us would do when put to the test and when responsibility was given us. Then, when the time came for our habitation on mortal earth, all things were prepared and the servants of the Lord chosen and ordained to their respective missions” (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, 50–51).

“When the time arrived for us to be advanced in the scale of our existence and pass through this mundane probation, councils were held and the spirit children were instructed in matters pertaining to conditions in mortal life, and the reason for such an existence. In the former life we were spirits. In order that we should advance and eventually gain the goal of perfection, it was made known that we would receive tabernacles or bodies of flesh and bones and have to pass through mortality where we would be tried and proved to see if we, by trial, would prepare ourselves for exaltation. We were made to realize, in the presence of our glorious Father, who had a tangible body of flesh and bones which shone like the sun, that we were, as spirits, far inferior in our station to him” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:57).
    “From this revelation found in Abraham (Abraham 3:23), two things can be inferred:
1) that there were among those spirits [in premortal life] different degrees of intelligence, varying grades of achievement, retarded and advanced spiritual attainment;
2) that there were no national distinctions among those spirits such as Americans, Europeans, Asiatics, Australians, etc. Such ‘bounds of habitation’ would have to be ‘determined’ when the spirits entered their earthly existence or second estate. …
    “Now if none of these spirits were permitted to enter mortality until they all were good and great and had become leaders, then the diversity of conditions among the children of men as we see them today would certainly seem to indicate discrimination and injustice. On the other hand, since we had developed different levels of intelligence, achievement and willingness, our place in this world would then be determined by our own advancement or condition in the pre-mortal state, just as our place in our future existence will be determined by what we do here in mortality.

“When, therefore, the Creator said to Abraham, and to others of his attainment, ‘You I will make my rulers,’ there could exist no feeling of envy or jealousy among the million other spirits, for those who were ‘good and great’ were but receiving their just reward” (David O. McKay, Home Memories of President David O. McKay, 228–30).
(See the next post, “A Plan for Salvation – Part II,” for more on this pre-mortal to mortal existence as we carry out our development under the Father’s Plan for our Salvation)

The United States as the Land of Promise –Part I

The Concept of Infallibility – Part II

Continuing with the misconception among some members and many critics and theorists of the infallibility of early Church leaders. 
    It should be no surprise to anyone that men, no matter who they are or what calling they hold, are men, subject to the frailties of men and human in all respects. That some, when called to important and sacred positions rise, for the most part, above their frailties is remarkable, but not to be misconstrued to mean that they rise above the point of making mistakes, either in their words or actions.

When the Lord called Moses, the 80 year old soon-to-be prophet replied, “O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither before nor since you have spoken to your servant; but I am slow of speech and of a slow tongue” (Exodus 4:10). Like many today, Moses was unwilling to serve when first called—he did not want to go and told the Lord that surely there was another who could fulfill such a calling.
    Even the greatest among us are still men with human feelings and concerns. Leaders and Prophets do not always speak for the Lord.
    As B. H. Roberts stated: “Relative to these sermons [Journal of Discourses] I must tell you they represent the individual views of the speakers, and the Church is not responsible for their teachings. Our authorized Church works are the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. In the Church very wide latitude is given to individual belief and opinion, each man being responsible for his views and not the Church; the Church is only responsible for that which she sanctions and approves through the formal actions of her councils. So it may be that errors will be found in the sermons of men, and that in their over zeal unwise expressions will escape them, for all of which the Church is not responsible” (Letter written November 4, 1887, London, Millennial Star 49. 48, November 28, 1887, pp760-763, quote from p762).

As editor, Charles W. Penrose (left), in his response to a lengthy statement by Judge Anderson, quotes from the same pamphlet which the Judge had quoted from (Blood Atonement, by Elder Charles W. Penrose, published in 1884), quoting a statement which the Judge had not: “’The law of God is paramount. When men give their views upon any doctrine, the value of those views is as the value of the man. If he is a wise man, a man of understanding, of experience and authority, such views are of great weight with the community; but they are not paramount, nor equal to the revealed law of God’” (Editorial: Judge Anderson and ‘Blood Atonement,’ Deseret Weekly 39. 25, December 14, 1889, pp772a-773c, quote from 773ab).
    Joseph F. Smith on July 16, 1902 stated to Lillian Golsan, "The theories, speculations, and opinions of men, however intelligent, ingenious, and plausible, are not necessarily doctrines of the Church or principles that God has commanded His servants to preach. No doctrine is a doctrine of this Church until it has been accepted as such by the Church, and not even a revelation from God should be taught to his people until it has first been approved by the presiding authority–the one through whom the Lord makes known His will for the guidance of the saints as a religious body. The spirit of revelation may rest upon any one, and teach him or her many things for personal comfort and instruction. But these are not doctrines of the Church, and, however true, they must not be inculcated until proper permission is given” (cited in Dennis B. Horne (ed.), Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluation Doctrinal Truth, Roy, Utah: Eborn Books, 2005, pp221–222. Also in Statements of the LDS First Presidency, compiled by Gary James Bergera, Signature, 2007, p121. Bergera indicates it is a letter from JFS to Lillian Golsan, July 16, 1902).
    On March 26, 1907 in the Millennial Star: “We refuse to be bound by the interpretations which others place upon our beliefs, or by what they allege must be the practical consequences of our doctrines. Men have no right to impute to us what they think may be the logical deduction from our beliefs, but which we ourselves do not accept. We are to be judged by our own interpretations and by our own actions, not by the logic of others, as to what is, or may be, the result of our faith” (“An Address. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the World”, in Millennial Star 69. 16, April 18, 1907, pp241-247; 249-254; also in Improvement Era 10, May 1907, pp481-495; reprinted also in Messages of the First Presidency, Volume IV, compiled by James R. Clark, Bookcraft, SLC 1970, pp142-157, quote from p154).

Regarding the printed discourses of even leading brethren, B.H. Roberts (left) in 1921 stated: “they do not constitute the court of ultimate appeal on doctrine. They may be very useful in the way of elucidation and are very generally good and sound in doctrine, but they are not the ultimate sources of the doctrines of the Church, and are not binding upon the Church. The rule in that respect is—What God has spoken, and what has been accepted by the Church as the word of God, by that, and that only, are we bound in doctrine. When in the revelations it is said concerning the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator that the Church shall “give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them—for his word ye shall receive as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith”—(Doc & Cov., Sec. 21)—it is understood, of course, that his has reference to the word of God received through revelation, and officially announced to the Church, and not to every chance word spoken” (Brigham H. Roberts, “Answers Given to ‘Ten Reasons Why Christians Can Not Fellowship with Latter-day Saints,’” discourse delivered in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, 10 July 1921; Deseret News, 23 July 1921, 4:7; Roberts' previous reply to the same pamphlet also appeared in Brian H. Stuy (editor), Collected Discourses: Delivered by Wilford Woodruff, his two counselors, the twelve apostles, and others, 1868–1898, 5 vols., (Woodland Hills, Utah: B.H.S. Publishing, 1987–1989), 5 pp134-141; first published in Millennial Star 58 (July 22, 1896): 417-20; 433-9).
    In addition, we find from the LDS Newsroom, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine": Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some of the information about the Church, no matter how convincing, is just not true. There was a controversial article published in 1985 in Time Magazine entitled: “Challenging Mormonism’s Roots.” It spoke of a recently discovered letter, supposedly written by Martin Harris, that conflicted with Joseph Smith’s account of finding the Book of Mormon plates (see Richard N. Ostlings, “Challenging Mormonism’s Roots,” Time, May 20, 1985, p44). The article quoted a man who said he was leaving the Church over the document. Later, others reportedly left the Church (See Gordon B. Hinckley, “Lord, Increase Our Faith,” Ensign, Nov. 1987, p52). Friends asked if this new information would destroy the Mormon Church; however a few months later, experts discovered (and the forger confessed) that the letter was a complete fraud.
    Unfortunately, some people question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church, one taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

Even Jesus' apostles were not always perfectly humble or modest. They once disputed over which of them would be the greatest in heaven (Mark 9:34). Once again, men are men everywhere, including in the Church, no matter their calling—they are not perfect and do not claim to be. Nor do they claim that every word out of their mouth is the Word of God, though, depending on the position, some members seem to think so. We need to keep in mind, not even a prophet is a prophet unless he is acting as one, and what he has to say is ratified and voted upon by the Church.

The Concept of Infallibility – Part I

There seems to be a really big problem among theorists who go around quoting this leader or that leader of the Church in what they have said over time, especially recently with all the quotes stated here on some blogs that use Oliver Cowdery’s comments to “prove” the hill Cumorah was located in New York. 

One of the things these individuals seem to lack an understanding in is that because someone of prominence in the Church, including a prophet, gives their own opinion on something that it is absolute doctrine. As Joseph Smith said, “A prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such” (Joseph Smith, in History of the Church, 5:265).
     A question posed by one of our readers recently asked, “Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible?”
     According to Charles W. Penrose, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve (1904-1911), “We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President of the Church has claimed infallibility” ("Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered," Improvement Era 15 no. 11, September 1912). And this is as true today as it was over 100 years ago.
    Brigham Young said: “I have known many times I have preached wrong,” (Brigham Young, in Thomas Bullock minutes, 8 May 1854, Church Historical Department). He also said, “The great masses of the people neither think nor act for themselves…I see too much of this gross ignorance among this chosen people of God” (Journal of Discourses 9:295), and also: “Ladies and gentlemen, I exhort you to think for yourselves, and read your Bibles for yourselves, get the Holy Spirit for yourselves, and pray for yourselves” (Journal of Discourses 11:107).
    We need to keep in mind that apostles and prophets such as Joseph Smith declare God’s word, but in addition, we believe men and women generally and even children can learn from and be guided by divine inspiration in response to prayer and study of the scriptures. Just as in the days of the ancient Apostles, members of the Church of Jesus Christ are given the gift of the Holy Ghost, which facilitates an ongoing communication with their Heavenly Father, or, in other words, personal revelation (Acts 2:37-38). In this way, the Church becomes a body of committed, spiritually mature individuals whose faith is not blind but seeing—informed and confirmed by the Holy Spirit. This is not to say that every member speaks for the Church or can define its doctrines but that each can receive divine guidance in dealing with the challenges and opportunities of his or her own life.
    The problem arises when people hold inerrantist (error free) beliefs about scriptures or prophets, and assume that the Church has similar views. This leads some (both critics and members) to assume that prophets are infallible. As stated above Joseph Smith himself taught that ‘a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such’ (Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976, p278). The Church has always taught that its leaders are human and subject to failings as are all mortals. Only Jesus was perfect, as explained in this statement from the First Presidency: “The position is not assumed that the men of the New Dispensation —its prophets, apostles, presidencies, and other leaders—are without faults or infallible, rather they are treated as men of like passions with their fellow men.” James R. Clark, quoting B. H. Roberts, Messages of the First Presidency, edited by James R. Clark, Vol. 4, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1970), p. xiv–xv).

Along this line, Brigham Young said: “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self–security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.” (Journal of Discourses 9:150; 12 January 1862).
    Along this same line, Harold B. Lee stated the same doctrine and quoted Brigham Young’s above comment (Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye In Holy Places, pp. 162–63, "The Prophet, Seer, and Revelator," Address delivered to seminary and institute teachers, BYU, 8 July 1964.)
    Lucinda Lee “Lu” Dalton, a plural wife, poet, educator and suffragist writing in the Church's periodical for women, who defends her religion, calls for the expansion of women’s political and economic opportunities and asserts that the elevation of women is crucial to achieving the potential of both sexes, explained: “We consider God, and him alone, infallible; therefore his revealed word to us cannot be doubted, though we may be in doubt some times about the knowledge which we obtain from human sources, and occasionally be obliged to admit that something which we had considered to be a fact, was really only a theory” (Woman's Exponent, Salt Lake City, 15 July 1882, p. 31).
    We understand that the prophets are not perfect, but they are called of God. They may speak as men, but may speak scripture as well. Every person may know for themselves whether they speak the truth through the same power that their revelation is given: the power of the Holy Ghost.
    Dallin H. Oaks explained how the Lord allows all His children to grow through struggling with problems: “Revelations from God…are not constant. We believe in continuing revelation, not continuous revelation. We are often left to work out problems without the dictation or specific direction of the Spirit. That is part of the experience we must have in mortality. Fortunately, we are never out of our Savior's sight, and if our judgment leads us to actions beyond the limits of what is permissible and if we are listening…the Lord will restrain us by the promptings of his Spirit” (Teaching and Learning by the Spirit,” Ensign, March 1997, p14).
    Unfortunately, some question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many, so that our doctrine is not difficult to find.
    The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father…but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been” (Ether 12:6).

In a sermon preached a little over a month before he was martyred, Joseph Smith declared, “I never told you I was perfect—but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught” (The Words of Joseph Smith, ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, 1980, p369).” He warned the Saints against mortal imperfections, he did not raise himself above them, and they loved him for it. He cautioned a group of Saints newly arrived in Nauvoo against the tendency to be dissatisfied if everything was not done perfectly right. “He said he was but a man and they must not expect him to be perfect,” an associate recorded. “If they expected perfection from him, he should expect it from them, but if they would bear with his infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, he would likewise bear with their infirmities” (The Papers of Joseph Smith, Volume 2, Journal, 1832–1842, ed. Dean C. Jessee [1992], p489).
(See the next post, “The Concept of Infallibility – Part II,” in which more comments are added from Church leaders and doctrine to the point that LDS do not consider their leaders infallible or perfect men)

What Did Moroni Mean “Whether I Go it Mattereth Not”?

At the close of the record, which his father, Mormon, gave to him, and that he so diligently kept and guarded, Moroni wrote: “Therefore I will write and hide up the records in the earth; and whither I go it mattereth not” (Mormon 8:4).

At this point, around 401 A.D. (Mormon 8:6), Moroni writes that it doesn’t matter where he buries the plates “in the ground,” it doesn’t matter where he would die, it doesn’t matter how he dies, and it doesn’t matter what happens to him in life from this point on—the Lamanites were at war one with another; and the whole face of this land was one continual round of murder and bloodshed; and no one knew when the war would end (Mormon 8:8). All the Nephites had been hunted down and destroyed (Mormon 8:7) and none existed on the face of the land (Mormon 8:9).
    What mattered to Moroni was what was written on the plates (Mormon 8:12, 14) and that it be preserved by the Lord and brought forth for future generations (Mormon 8:16) as the Lord promised, that the future Lamanites, Gentiles and House of Israel would all know of the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and present a witness of the Savior—which is a Second Witness to us today in addition to the Bible.
    All of this was given with a warning by Moroni (Mormon 8:12, 17), and that “the eternal purposes of the Lord shall roll on, until all his promises shall be fulfilled” (Mormon 8:22).
    What was important to Moroni he wrote (Mormon 9), and what is important, and the backbone of this blog and the nearly 2000 posts over a full six year period is not where the Land of Promise was located, where the hill Cumorah was located, or where the Nephite Nation lived and the Jaredite kingdom before that—what has always been important in the writing of this blog and the backbone of its existence, is to verify and support the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon exactly as it was originally written, abridged by Nephi, Mormon and Moroni, and translated by Joseph Smith through the workings of the Spirit.
    The errors of theorists in their erroneous interpretations of this sacred record that Joseph Smith called “the most correct book,” meaning what was written in its pages, not how it was written, which Moroni pointed out would contain errors, both in the writing part because of the difficulty of transcribing Hebrew thought and meanings into a foreign language called Reformed Egyptian (Mormon 9:32), would ultimate cause some errors made by the writers (Mormon 9:31, 33). And that is why the Lord had it translated by the means he prepared (Joseph Smith and the Spirit) for the purpose of bringing forth unto us in our day a correct work as viewed by the Lord (Mormon 9:30).
    The first three witnesses, Oliver Cowdery (died at the age of 44), David Whitmer (died at the age of 83) and Martin Harris (died at the age of 92)—the first two, Oliver and David were 23 years old, and Martin was 45, when they were shown the plates in June 1829—all testified of seeing the Plates. Their "Testimony of Three Witnesses" summarizes the supernatural event that followed, when an angel appeared and showed them the plates and engravings and they heard the Lord declare that the Book of Mormon was "translated by the gift and power of God."

Left to Right: Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, David Whitmer 
    The three witnesses also said they heard "the voice of the Lord" telling them that the translation of the plates was correct, and commanding them to testify of what they saw and heard.” David Whitmer later stated that the angel showed them "the breast plates, the Ball or Directors, the Sword of Laban, and other plates” (Van Horn, 1881; Kelley & Blakeslee, 1882; see also Joseph Smith, 1835, p 171).
    David Witmer also stated in an interview with the Kansas City Journal: “Joseph, Oliver Cowdery and myself were together, and the angel showed [the plates] to us. [We were] sitting on a log when we were overshadowed by a light more glorious than that of the sun. In the midst of this light, but a few feet from us, appeared a table upon which were many golden plates, also the sword of Laban and the directors. I saw them as plain as I see you now, and distinctly heard the voice of the Lord declaiming that the records of the plates of the Book of Mormon were translated by the gift and power of God” (June 1, 1881, in Lyndon Cook, ed., David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness, Orem, UT, Grandin Book, 1991, p63).
    Cowdery, Whitmer, and Harris signed a joint statement that has been included in each of the more than 120 million copies of the Book of Mormon printed since then, which reads in part: “And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true” (“The Testimony of Three Witnesses,” Book of Mormon).
    Each of the three was a respected and independent member of non-Mormon society, active in his community. Their lives, fully documented, clearly demonstrate their honesty and intelligence. David Whitmer repeatedly reacted against charges of possible "delusion." To one skeptic, he responded: "Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view…but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time" (Anderson, p. 87). Perhaps their later alienation makes them even more credible as witnesses, for no collusion could have withstood their years of separation from the Church and from each other.
    The point of all this is that the Lord himself verified the accuracy and correctness of the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon—it is not wrong, the directions Mormon used are not wrong, the statement Jacob made about being on an island is not wrong, nor are any of the descriptions, such as the Land Northward and the Land Southward being in an area where the mountains rose to a height which is great, which should eliminate all of the eastern United States, especially the Heartland and Great Lakes area, which has no mountains, let alone high ones. We could go on about this, but the point is the work is correct as is, the Lord has said so, and we need to stop trying to change it or its meanings.

Having said all that, it should also be pointed out that the book was never meant to be a perfect writing of the English Language, anymore than the fact that the translations into 82 foreign languages (plus partial translates into 25 others) are perfect in those languages, since translation, rather than being a word-for-word understanding is a meaning-for-meaning understanding, and in that sense, the Book of Mormon as a scriptural record (not a history book) is without blemish and perfect in its meanings, bringing us the Word of God as He wanted us to receive it, and accept it, based on both our testimony of its correctness and our faith in His work that brought it about.
    And we have the Lord’s testimony that it is!
    It was never meant to be a literary masterpiece in which it would pass every understanding of spelling and grammar since that has changed before, during, and after the book was published as we have pointed out in the previous series and for several years here.
    What it was meant to be is exactly what it is, a spiritual work that will bring us closer to God, His Son, and the gospel in its fullness, from the reason we are here to the atonement and its purpose, and to where we will ultimately end up. This fate befell the Nephites—in some generations they were near perfect, as humans can be; but in others they were as evil as the
Children of Men have ever been, and as Mormon put it, had lost their grace (Mormon 2:15).
    The reason for supporting the scriptural record in this blog is to correct those errors in print that have crept into the thinking and beliefs pertaining to descriptions and meanings of individuals who have felt they knew more to its translation than those who wrote, abridged and translated the work. Based simply on the clear and precise writing of Mormon and others, in theorists’ changing of the meaning of words and phrases, from Sorenson’s altering the north-south-east-west meanings which Mormon provided for our greater understanding, to the description of how Nephi’s ship sailed “driven forth before the wind,” meaning with currents and winds, to Jacob’s description of the Land of Promise being an island, to Mormon’s small and narrow neck of land and to his narrow pass and passage through it.

This blog has attempted the best it could to show that the words Mormon used and the words Joseph Smith used in translation, aptly describe the events, geography, layout, and events of the Book of Mormon sufficient for us to arrive at a clear and precise location—one that matches every single descriptive comment stated of such in the overall work.
    To make less of, or change, alter, ridicule or present a different meaning, is both unconscionable and unscholarly, more especially for those professors and students in the fields at BYU as well as all others. Mormon was clear and precise in his language, Joseph Smith was clear and precise in his language. While some parts need further study and the spirit’s aid in coming to the correct conclusion and understanding, that understanding and conclusions will not contradict what was written and translated as so many Theorists do, whether aware of it or not.
    There is one location where the Book of Mormon took place, and additional areas in the Western Hemisphere where Nephites and Lamanites settled after leaving the Land of Promise on Hagoth’s ships, and we find in the Western Hemisphere the original settlement of an advanced culture, which the Jaredites (from Babylon) and Lehites (from Jerusalem) would have built—and nowhere in Asia and the Middle East where they came from would have been building with sticks and wood that deteriorated over the centuries anymore than the sites built during Jaredite times in Babylon and during Lehi and Nephi’s time in Jerusalem have deteriorated and are unknown.

However, as Moroni said, it mattereth not. The important thing that matters is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To know and understand God’s word and its meaning and purpose in our life gives us added testimony of a loving Father and his Son and the atonement that brought about the Law of Repentance and the knowledge of who we are, from whence we came, and where we are going.
    To know where these events we read about on over 500 pages is as worthwhile and helpful as it is to know where the Holy Land was and is located when reading the bible. Not essential, but helpful.
    And that information is available in the scriptural record if we simply read the record the way it was written and translated and not try to insert our own personal bias and prejudices into the work, but follow the events as they unfold with the Spirit and our own understanding of the words, and not try to force them to mean something they do not say.
    As Moroni so eloquently said, “Be wise in the days of your probation” (Mormon 9:28).

America is the Land of Promise—But Where is America?-Part XVII

Continuing with the previous posts regarding one of our readers sending us information of a blog and asking our opinion and comments. 
    Blog comment: “As I mentioned earlier, lack of written evidence is not evidence of no oral usage of the term.”
    Response: “Neither does lack of written evidence lead to evidence of an oral use of a term. Such an argument is neither useful nor of any value whatever. To suggest that Joseph Smith said that the hill in New York was called Cumorah without any written documentation or suggestive material to support that is as useless as saying that though Joseph Smith never wrote that the Nephites were in Andean Peru it can be suggested that from all his conversations with the Angel Moroni about the Nephite people that he must have said verbally to others that they were there. If there is no written documentation that can be attributed without question and without doubt to Joseph Smith, then such an idea cannot be attributed to him no matter how much a person might believe it to be true.
    Nor can it be implied that if a word or term was used in his presence that he agreed with it or did not correct it verbally. Chastisement or correction verbally is one thing and carries little negative connotations; however, to write down one’s disagreement is a lasting comment that can cause one’s reputation undue harm. Just because there is no written record that Joseph Smith disagreed with, or at least did not agree with, Oliver Cowdery’s point of view about the hill Cumorah does not mean that he actually agreed with something Oliver believed. Once again, Joseph was well known for not correcting or making a statement about a point that he may not have had an opinion on or even with which he disagreed.

To assume Joseph said things that are not recorded and have that belief used as proof of his saying something is a type of reasoning with which the blog author fills his writing, and is no different than saying the ship that Nephi built was a two-masted sailing vessel somewhat like the ships built almost two thousands years later by the Europeans leading to their Age of Discovery, despite the fact that no such comment is made or implied by Nephi’s writings on the plates.
    It does not matter how much a person might believe that, there is no way to use Nephi’s writings as a proof of that point. It could be said that the stress of a single mast sailing ship, to the pounding of waves and strength of winds in the deep oceans requiring such a minimal canvas design, but Nephi’s writings cannot be used for proof or support of the point.

What can be used in Nephi’s writings is his comment “driven forth before the wind” (1 Nephi 18:8, 9) which in today’s maritime terminology is the same as “Running Downwind,” or “Running with the wind,” or “Running before the wind,” all of which means that the ship is being pushed forward by the wind which is coming from directly behind the vessel. When running downwind for protracted periods when ocean-crossing in steady trade winds, for example, which makes the use of a tiller (steering) difficult and if the wind is not constant and the currents compatible, the ship can easily be moved off course. On ships that can reach (traveling approximately perpendicular, 90º, to the wind) or beat (sailing close or into the wind) and run point of sail (orientation to wind, i.e., port tack or starboard tack), running with the wind can be both difficult and dangerous for an inexperienced crew; however, in a fixed sail vessel that can only run with the wind, it is the fastest and simplest means of sailing and requires little if almost any degree of knowledge since both wind and current push the boat in the direction one intends to sail.
    With this statement by Nephi “we did put forth into the sea and were driven forth before the wind towards the promised land” (1 Nephi 18:8, 9), we can obviously know what type of sailing vessel it was, i.e., fixed sails that had fixed yardarms and could not tack (move off from the following wind—could not beat or reach). But even so, it could not be said how many masts, how many sails, the ship had or how it was configured other than the fact that it ran with the wind (sailed only in the direction the winds and currents pushed it along).
    Blog comment: “Documented history does support the use of the term (Cumorah) in Joseph's presence before 1830, use in 1833 in the official Church newspaper, and extensive, specific identification of the New York hill as Cumorah in 1835 that Joseph incorporated into his own history.”

Response: If all that is true, then why did President Joseph F. Smith (left), Joseph Smth’s nephew and Hyrum Smith’s son, declare that “the Lord has not yet revealed it” (Cannon, p 160), and Anthony W. Ivins, counselor in the First Presidency, who added in 1929, 'There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles that question [of Book of Mormon geography].... We are just waiting until we discover the truth" (CR, Apr. 1929, p. 16). While the Church does not currently take an official position with regard to location of geographical places, the authorities do not discourage private efforts to deal with the subject (John E. Clark, “Book of Mormon Geography,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1992, pp. 176–179). In addition, it cannot be overstated that, even as the blog author states, “Joseph had a record of allowing people to believe whatever they wanted and not correcting false doctrine, preferring to let people judge for themselves.” Of course, the term “false doctrine” is his term, not mine, but the fact is that Joseph Smith did, as has been stated earlier, allow people their own opinions both stated and in writing.
    The point should be made that if there was a need to correct one misstatement then there would be a need to correct other misstatements, whether about the Urim and Thumim or the hill Cumorah. The assumptions here are unfounded. The statement of importance is that Joseph Smith had a record of allowing people to believe whatever they wanted and not correcting it—this would be true especially in areas where people’s opinions are used, rather than saying “false doctrine.” Joseph’s desire to allow people their own free will in their beliefs is the same as every President of the Church since his time. As has been pointed out here, even Joseph Fielding Smith made that clear when Sidney Sperry was fearful of printing something that contradicted what President Smith had said, as has been reported in this work earlier.
    Blog comment: “Some people continue to resist the facts so this blog seeks to open a few minds.”
    Response: Without quoting a single scripture from the scriptural record to support his view, the blog author rambles on and on about a very important controversial issue based on the scriptural record, i.e., the Hill Cumorah.

It is hard to understand how someone can use such determined comments that are not supportable by clear cut provisions, but something Oliver Cowdery wrote of his own beliefs, suggesting that Joseph Smith and he were given insights into the information by the Angel Moroni without any supportable evidence, that Joseph Smith believed the hill in New York was the hill Cumorah of the scriptural record where there is not evidence he ever said or thought that other than it appeared in print in the Times & Seasons of which it is assumed he read and knew about, etc. It should be noted that if this type of reasoning prevails, then why do we have such a resistance to Frederick G. Williams writing down in a First Presidency meeting, when he was the Second Counselor to Joseph Smith, that Lehi landed at 30º South Latitude in Chile? How can we accept one and reject the other?
    When it is written “Some people continue to resist the facts so this blog seeks to open a few minds,” one must consider that “some people insist on something that cannot be shown to be true other than by innuendo, unsupportable evidence, opinions and beliefs.”
    The interesting thing is, the blog author claims the Book of Mormon took place in what is now the United States, yet as has been pointed out in this series, America has always been North and South America; this continent has always been up until WWII the American Continent
    Isn’t it about time we stopped trying to force a location for the Book of Mormon Land of Promise that simply does not fit the profile outlined in the scriptural record? Or stop trying to make the term “America,” apply only to the United States when, in the early 1800s during Joseph Smith’s lifetime and for nearly a century after his death, “America” stood for the Western Hemisphere and the continent was the “American Continent,” which encompasses all of North, Central and South America.
    As one of our readers, David K., recently sent in from Webster’s1828 dictionary: “Clearly shows that America at the time included North and South…AMER'ICA, noun [from Amerigo Vespucci, a Florentine, who pretended to have first discovered the western continent.]
One of the great continents, first discovered by Sebastian Cabot, June 11, O.S. 1498, and by Columbus, or Christoval Colon, Aug. 1, the same year. It extends from the eightieth degree of North, to the fifty-fourth degree of South Latitude; and from the thirty-fifth to the one hundred and fifty-sixth degree of Longitude West from Greenwich, being about nine thousand miles in length. Its breadth at Darien is narrowed to about forty-five miles, but at the northern extremity is nearly four thousand miles. From Darien to the North, the continent is called North america and to the South, it is called South America” (Noah Webster 1828).
    As Galileo Galilei once said, “All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.”

America is the Land of Promise—But Where is America?-Part XVI

Continuing with the previous posts regarding one of our readers sending us information of a blog and asking our opinion and comments.
     Blog comment: “Compare this to the assumptions made to support the Mesoamerican Hill Cumorah: 1) Joseph Smith did not know Book of Mormon Geography…”
    Response: Actually, we do not know what Joseph Smith knew about the geography. But from at least one incident, we might infer he did not know particularly where the Nephites were. A convert named John Bernhisel joined the Church in 1837 while practicing medicine in New York City. In 1841 he was ordained bishop of the congregation there. Bernhisel was a well-educated man, and in 1841 read Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan by John L Stephens with drawings by Frederick Catherwood.

Left: John Lloyd Stephens; Center: Frederick Catherwood self-portrait; Right: The red shaded area is where the information in the book “Incidents of Travel” covered
    Impressed by the book, Bernhisel gave the two-volume work to Wilford Woodruff in September 1841 with instructions to make sure it was given to Joseph Smith. Woodruff, who was on his way back from England to Nauvoo, delivered the book, as requested. It would appear that Joseph appreciated receiving the book, as he wrote a letter to Bernhisel acknowledging the gift. Dated November 16, 1841, the first paragraph of the letter states: “I received your kind present by the hand of Er Woodruff & feel myself under many obligations for this mark of your esteem & friendship which to me is the more interesting as it unfolds & develops many things that are of great importance to this generation & corresponds with & supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon; I have read the volumes with the greatest interest & pleasure & must say that of all histories that have been written pertaining to the antiquities of this country it is the most correct luminous & comprehensive” (Dean C. Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, revised edition, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2002, p533).
    Two points should be made here: 1) Joseph’s statement: “of all histories that have been written pertaining to the antiquities of this country it is the most correct luminous & comprehensive,” indicated as we have said, “this country” pertains to both North and South America, since Incidents of Travel dealt with Mesoamerica, and not at all with North America or the area of the United States; and 2) Joseph did not say directly that Mesoamerica was the home of the Nephites, but suggested that the ruins were Nephite. None of this was in what this blog author claims was the Nephite lands–in fact almost all theorists refrain from putting into their articles information that would work against their views, like this one.

Some of Catherwood’s drawings that impressed Joseph Smith to feel these were Nephite ruins
    Following this event, in September 1842, while John Taylor was editor of the Times and Seasons, an article appeared in the paper regarding Stephen’s book: “Mr. Stephens' great developments of antiquities are made bare to the eyes of all the people by reading the history of the Nephites in the Book of Mormon. They lived about the narrow neck of land, which now embraces Central America, with all the cities that can be found. Read the destruction of cities at the crucifixion of Christ, pages 459-60. Who could have dreamed that twelve years would have developed such incontrovertible testimony to the Book of Mormon?” (Extract from Stephens' 'Incidents of Travel in Central America'," Times and Seasons 3 no. 22 ,15 September 1842, p915)
    It is obvious that when first shown the ruins in Central or Mesoamerica, the early Saints, including Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff and John Taylor associated those ruins with the Nephites–and why wouldn't they? It was proof positive of an early civilization in the Western Hemisphere as the Book of Mormon and the early Saints, especially Joseph Smith, proclaimed.

More of Catherwood’s drawings that inspired numerous people and early church leaders to look toward Central and Mesoamerica for the early American advanced culture
    Obviously, Joseph was taken and impressed by these ruins. He stated in July 1842: “Stephens and Catherwood's researches in Central America abundantly testify of this thing. The stupendous ruins, the elegant sculpture, and the magnificence of the ruins of Guatamala, and other cities, corroborate this statement, and show that a great and mighty people-men of great minds, clear intellect, bright genius, and comprehensive designs inhabited this continent. Their ruins speak of their greatness; the Book of Mormen unfolds their history.-ED” (Joseph Smith (editor), "American Antiquities," Times and Seasons 3 no. 18, 15 July 1842, p860).
    In the stories and knowledge the Angel Moroni imparted to Joseph Smith about those who lived on this continent and from wench they came, one might suggest that the information was general as opposed to specific, i.e., general area of this land, this country, this continent, as opposed to this tract of land, this hill, this mountain, this valley. Certainly Joseph thought the land the Nephites occupied at one time or another was in Central and Mesoamerica—he also, evidently, thought Lehi landed 30º South Latitude on the western Chilean coast of South America according to Frederick G. Williams (see our blog post: More Interesting Facts About 30º South Latitude – The Chilean Coast, Tuesday, August 28, 2012).

Left: Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams, First Presidency meeting in which was written down the 30º South Latitude landing; Right: Coquimbo Bay, Chile, located at 30º South Latitude on the Chilean coast of South America–the magnificent Andean ruins were unknown to Americans in Joseph Smith's day as were those of Mesoamerica until Catherwood's drawings in "Incidents of Travel" reached America
    Joseph also obviously thought that which ever generation of Nephites he thought built or occupied the ruins he saw depicted by Catherwood’s drawings in Stephen’s book, he knew “the Book of Mormon unfolded their history.” That is, the history of these people would be found in the Book of Mormon.
    Blog comment: [That Joseph Smith] “…did not know where the Book of Mormon Cumorah was…”
    Response: Whether or not Joseph knew this is unknown; however, it is obvious he did not make a statement as to where it was, and obviously not in New York for the hill there he referred to only as “the hill where the plates were buried.” This sounds like he was separating the hill where the plates were found from the hill where the plates were buried (or more correctly deposited and hid up), but again, that cannot be confirmed from Joseph’s writings.
    Blog comment: “[That Joseph Smith] “did not declare the Book of Mormon Cumorah to be in New York…”
    Response: Joseph Smith never declared the Book of Mormon Cumorah to be in New York. He declared that the hill where the plates were found by him was in New York.
    Blog comment: “[That the] “…anonymous articles in the “Times & Seasons” reflected better knowledge than Joseph and Oliver, or at least better speculation…”
    Response: Actually, as pointed out above, Joseph wrote in the Times & Seasons that the Nephites were in Central America, Chiapas and the Yucatan from seeing the pictures of the ruins drawn by Frederick Catherwood.
    Blog comment: “Scientific evidence supports a Mesoamerican setting better than a North American setting. The first four, I suppose, are matters of personal belief based on inferences one makes from the evidence, but the last one, as I demonstrate in Lost City of Zarahemla and Moroni’s America, is inverted.”
    Response: The blog author claims it is a matter of opinion even though Joseph Smith said the ruins in Central and Mesoamerica were obviously Nephite. I guess he thinks if it doesn’t agree with his beliefs, he can pass it off only as an of opinion. As for the last point, one has to agree with him since there is little evidence that the Mesoamerican Book of Mormon Land of Promise matches the scriptural record. For the most part is does not at all; but that does not preclude the fact that Nephites at one time moved into, settled, and built up Central and Mesoamerica.

Ruins in Mesoamerica where a culture similar to that of Andean Peru built similar stone pyramids and complex centers
    Hagoth’s immigrants went northward (Alma 63:5) in such large numbers—“five thousand and four hundred men, with their wives and their children” (Alma 63:4), that evidence of their culture would have to be somewhere north of the Land of Promise, i.e., north of the entire Land of Promise, which includes the Land Northward in the Land of Promise, which was part of Lehi's promise since Nephites (Lehi's descendants) eventually went into the Land Northward to inherit the land (Helaman 3:3).
    Blog comment: “The big problem here, to state it again, is the Mesoamericanists don't disclose all the evidence in a fair and objective way as Sperry requested.”
    Response: Based just on the last comment before this one, it sounds like this blog author is guilty of his own accusation, i.e., not disclosing all the evidence in a fair and objective way as Sperry requested!