Monday, June 3, 2019

Review of Annotated Book of Mormon

Here is the fourth in the series dealing with misrepresentation of historical sources. The misrepresentation of Joseph Smith's teachings about Zion seems particularly outrageous.

Review of Annotated Book of Mormon Part 3

The terms "this land", "this country" and "this continent" in early nineteenth century usage did not refer exclusively to the United States, but had a broader range of meaning. Part 3 of the review of the Annotated Book of Mormon.

Saturday, June 1, 2019

Review of Annotated Book of Mormon Part 2

Here is Part 2 of Stephen Smoot's detailed review of the Annotated Book of Mormon. There is evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. This is not it.

Review of the Annotated Book of Mormon: Part I

President M. Russell Ballard recently counseled teachers and instructors in the Church, "not to pass along faith promoting or unsubstantiated rumors or outdated understandings and explanations of our doctrine and practices from the past. It is always wise to . . . consult the works of recognized, thoughtful, and faithful LDS scholars to ensure you do not teach things that are untrue, out of date, or odd and quirky." Here is the first part of a lengthy review of book which is a prime example of what happens when we refuse to follow that Apostolic counsel. Differences of opinion and interpretation about Book of Mormon geography don't bother me. Everybody has a right to their own opinion. What is troubling is where books like the one reviewed below make factually, demonstrably erroneous claims that, if left unchecked, will damage the faith of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when they discover many of those things are problematic or untrue. There are many solid evidences of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. But the claims, as presented in this book cannot be relied upon. Buyer Beware.

Thursday, May 30, 2019

Has the Location of the Hill Cumorah Been Revealed?

Some have recently claimed that the location of the Hill Cumorah has been identified by revelation and that the New York Hill, called by that name today is the same hill at which the Nephites and Jaredites of the Book of Mormon were destroyed. Other Latter-day Saints who have examined the historical evidence have concluded that name of the New York Hill is likely based upon old tradition rather than a revelation of the geographical location of Mormon's Cumorah. Do those who hold the latter view reject the Prophets?

In recent decades Church leaders and historians have expressed caution concerning the location of the ancient hill. See for example, a recent statement from the official website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by two Church historians "Saints and Book of Mormon Geography."

Recently, the Church has also issued another statement affirming that the Church does not have an official position on the location of events in the Book of Mormon beyond affirming that they took place somewhere in the Americas. The Church welcomes humble and careful study of the subject, but cautions the Saints not to represent their personal interpretations as those of the Church.

On this see also my earlier post  "A New York Cumorah: Not a Hill We Have to Die On"

Here is the latest from the Pan on this question

"Has the Location of the Hill Cumorah Really Been Revealed?"