The Book of Mormon Proved Itself False

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

Out of interest, here are Orson Pratt's comments made in 1870:

"God promised in the year 1832 that we should, before this generation then living had passed away, return and build up the City of Zion in Jackson County; that we should return and build up the temple of the Most High where we formerly laid the corner stone. He promised us that He would manifest Himself on that temple, that the glory of God should be upon it; and not only upon the temple, but within it, even a cloud by day and a flaming fire by night.

We believe in these promises as much as we believe in any promise ever uttered by the mouth of Jehovah. The Latter-day Saints just as much expect to receive a fulfillment of that promise during the generation that was in existence in 1832 as they expect that the sun will rise and set to-morrow. Why? Because God cannot lie. He will fulfill all His promises. He has spoken, it must come to pass. This is our faith."

(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 362) [Emphasis added]


In 1871:

"We just as much expect that a city will be built, called Zion, in the place and on the land which has been appointed by the Lord our God, and that a temple will be reared on the spot that has been selected, and the corner-stone of which has been laid, in the generation when this revelation was given; we just as much expect this as we expect the sun to rise in the morning and set in the evening; or as much as we expect to see the fulfillment of any of the purposes of the Lord our God, pertaining to the works of his hands. But say the objector, "thirty nine years have passed away." What of that? The generation has not passed away; all the people that were living thirty-nine years ago have not passed away; but before they do pass away this will be fulfilled."

(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 14, p. 275.)


Joseph Fielding Smith in 1935:

"I firmly believe that there will be some of that generation who were living when this revelation was given who shall be living when this temple is reared. And I do not believe that the Lord has bound himself to accomplish the matter within 100 years from 1832." "I have full confidence in the word of the Lord and that it shall not fail."

The Way to Perfection, Salt Lake City, p. 270.
_CaliforniaKid
_Emeritus
Posts: 4247
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am

Post by _CaliforniaKid »

Thanks for that, Ray. Maybe God has squirreled away some 1832 Mormons in a stasis chamber somewhere so that he's not technically violating his promise, just like he did with John and the Three Nephites.
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

CaliforniaKid wrote:Thanks for that, Ray. Maybe God has squirreled away some 1832 Mormons in a stasis chamber somewhere so that he's not technically violating his promise, just like he did with John and the Three Nephites.


Chris, Gerald Lund in his book The Coming of The Lord, which was originally published c.1971, was still holding out hope of this prophecy being fulfilled. Lund is now a GA, and according to Amazon his book was re-issued in 2005. I no longer own a copy (I had the original), but my recollection is that Lund speculated about people alive in 1832 (but extended, of his accord, to the late 19th century) who (anyone anywhere on earth) might still be alive today thus according the prophecy some validity (corrections welcome). In 1997, this is what Lund said:

Principle 3: True revelation does not contradict gospel principles or go contrary to established Church policy and procedure.

This principle seems self-evident and hardly worthy of mention, but again and again we hear of cases where the principle is violated. Sensational stories or wild rumors go through the Church like wildfire. Some are almost ridiculous in nature, and yet there are still those who believe them. For example, one story that has been around for years tells of a hitchhiker supposedly picked up by Church members. As they drive along, the hitchhiker tells the people that if they don't have their food storage now, it is too late. Then he mysteriously disappears out of the car. You would think that everyone would be skeptical of such a story, but there are always a few who believe it. In another case a person predicted that the great earthquake foretold in the scriptures was about to hit Utah. For months he was a popular fireside speaker, and tapes of his talk were widely distributed. Do you remember a major earthquake in Utah in recent years? Neither do I. Another man worked out the exact day and date that Christ will come, and that, too, went around the Church like a sensation. The scriptures say that "no man, no, not [even] the angels of heaven" know the day nor the hour of his coming (Matthew 24:36). So where does that leave him? And why aren't we wise enough to see the contradiction? Here is what President Harold B. Lee had to say of such things:



It never ceases to amaze me how gullible some of our Church members are in broadcasting sensational stories, or dreams, or visions, or purported patriarchal blessings, or quotations, or supposed [entries] from some person's private diary. . . .

. . . We find that these [things] are finding their way into our Relief Society meetings, into priesthood quorums, firesides, institutes, and seminaries.


http://speeches.BYU.edu/reader/reader.php?id=2640

Would that include Orson Pratt's prophecy? Parley Pratt's? Remember this important line too:

True revelation does not contradict gospel principles or go contrary to established Church policy and procedure.


So "Church policy and procedure" is sacrosanct. "Revelation" (from sundry sources) cannot contradict it, because the revelations which gave it/them are from God. It's important to bear this in mind when contemplating the "God said it, and God cannot lie" line, because this impacts on the claim that the Black ban was "only a policy", according to some. According to Lund, there is no distinction. A policy or Church procedure is given by revelation. It isn't the "mind of men" (not even 18 month missions for males, where God decided he made a mistake). The Brethren have greater access to God. But the Brethren have no intention of addressing the false prophecies of Orson and Parley Pratt (and JFS), given in the name of God. It wasn't "Church policy".

On the subject of money-making, I don't know why there's such an emphasis on FARMS, frankly. Gerald Lund has handsomely profited from his books: http://deseretbook.com/authors/author-i ... or_id=1775

GA stipend, book profits, no doubt all goes back into the Church (insert cynical smiley here). Has anyone ever questioned where Gerald Lund's profits go?

Does anyone think that George P. Lee was just a disgruntled apostate complaining about the jet-setting lifestyles of the General Authorities? I've gone off on a tangent here, but not an unimportant one. Why the obsession with FARMS when the real money-making culprits seem to be the GAs themselves? Remember Sterling W. Sill? I read most of his books, but even as a faithful member I wondered about his leisurely indulgence in churning out gospel platitudes. His autobiography, for me, was nothing but the leisurely indulgence of a man with too much Church-sponsored time on his hands. This was a man who loved writing, and in his comfy lifestyle spent most of his time doing it. Now I don't envy a GA lifestyle, living out of suitcases and being away from family so often, but what you love doesn't become a burden. Nay, some are GLAD to escape "domestic duties" on this pretext. Apostle Richard L. Evans loved writing and speaking, and hated gardening and "domestic duties". No problem "sacrificing for the Lord" there! And I don't believe, for one minute, that Nibley was ever in apologetics for money. He was in it for love (and revenge), and for making anti-Mormons look like galahs. But he did what he loved doing best, and he could not have done it without a million gullible literalists who think that strange ships and shining stones have anything to do with reality.
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

And just in case some of you missed it:

Gerald Lund is among the most-read authors in Church literature. His publications have sold nearly 3,000,000 copies.


http://deseretbook.com/authors/author-i ... or_id=1775

And some are arguing over $200 here and there? Or fund-raisers? Does Elder Lund need "fund-raisers"?
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

There is definitely real money out there for GAs who write faith promoting books. They are far more popular than apologia, no doubt.

At least the church did away with the old practice of setting GAs on the boards of large Utahn corporations, where they were paid for basically doing nothing. I imagine they raked it in back then.

This is just the way the world works - those who make their way to the top of whatever organization they belong to are handsomely compensated. The world loves those alpha (usually) males.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Post Reply