Many try to pick and choose when a Prophet or General Authority is speaking by revelation and when they are not, and only speaking of themself. This does have a logical basis in the fact that Prophets and General Authorities are men just as any other man is, and they can often speak of themselves, their own ideas and their own opinions. Thus the analysis of the statements of the Church Authorities begins. But it isn't the fact that it begins that is disturbing, for each must hear and accept the information that is spoken based upon the merits of testimonial consistancy with the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. What is the disturbing point is, often once started, it can often turn the words of Church Leaders into being okay only if they agree with our own personal opinions upon a matter. And various statements are selectively ignored under the disguise of analytical assessment, as not being applicable because it must not be revelation if it doesn't agree with what we think things should be.
Now most good Chruch members well assure you that when a prophet says, 'Thus sayeth the Lord,' then you can accept it as revelation from God. But what if the prophet reports a 'vision from God' in his own words? Does that change it from being a revelation, because he is reporting the vision in his own words? What if a prophet sees the pending destruction of Jerusalem and goes out and warns the people. Because he does not authoritatively say, 'Thus sayeth the Lord.' Does that make it is not a revelation that Jerusalem would be destoryed?
So where am I going with this? Well, the Prophet Joseph Smith once gave a 'revelation' in his own words that he had received which would, if accepted as such, end all consideration of a Land and Hill Cumorah in Mesoamerica. The Prophet Joseph Smith said that he had on a particular occasion received 'visions' of the past 'by the Spirit of the Almighty.' Now if the Prophet told you of 'visions' shown to him 'by the Spirit of the Almighty,' would you believe them or not? I suppose it depends in part if you believe that he is a prophet or not, but assuming that you have accepted him as such, would you accept his account of his 'visions by the Spirit of the Almighty' God or not?
Now I become confused by those who do not believe in a report of a vision received by the Prophet when he says he received it 'by the Spirit of the Almighty.' Yet they say they believe Joseph Smith's account of the visitation of God the Father and the Son. And they say they believe the visions of Moroni, John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John. And they say they believe the reports of the visions of Christ, Moses, Elijah, and Elias in the Kirkland temple. And they say they believe the vision of the three degrees of glory in the 76th section of the Doctrine and covenants. But then I become confused when they will not accept another such vision that is reported by the same Prophet, which occurred during the march of Zion's Camp. It is almost like the Nephites saying we believe the teachings of our Nephite prophets but not the teachings of Samuel the Lamanite.
So why when the Prophet receives visions by the Spirit of Almighty God about Zelph a white Lamanite, perhaps an Ammonite, don't certain people believe and accept them just as they say they believe and accept all the rest of the Prophet Joseph Smith's accounts of his heavenly visions? Let's review the record as recorded in the History of the Church, Volume II, page 79-80. Now listen to the words recorded by Joseph Smith himself in respect to this occasion (red lettering provided to call attention to specific statements).
"On the top of the mound were stones which presented the appearance of three altars having been erected one above the other, according to the ancient order; and the remains of bones were strewn over the surface of the ground. The brethren procured a shovel and a hoe, and removing the earth to the depth of about one foot, discovered the skeleton of a man, almost entire, and between his ribs the stone point of a Lamanitish arrow, which evidently produced his death. Elder Burr Riggs retained the arrow. The contemplation of the scenery around us produced peculiar sensations in our bosoms: and subsequently the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains. The curse was taken from Zelph, or, at least, in part--one of his thigh bones was broken by a stone flung from a sling, while in battle, years before his death. He (Zelph) was killed in battle by the arrow found among his ribs, during the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites."
Now this history was compiled during the lifetime of the Prophet Joseph Smith. It was done under his direction and supervison. Yet some will suppose that the account of Zelph did not come directly from the Prophet, but was compiled from various sources, which they cannot confirm or clearly define themselves other than the fact that Wilford Woodruff's journal account of the incident is very much like what the History of the Church says. And then they will propose that the Prophet Joseph Smith did not sanction the account. They involve themselves in an effort to excuse themselves from accepting the Chruch History account of the story of Zelph, as it does not go along with what they themselves want to believe and/or have 'intellectually' determined to be the case. They become analytical mindreaders, assessing the past without having been there or knowing those who had. And they will consider all evidence contrived and otherwise, which they can use to conjuncture alternative conclusions to the situation from their own personal 'dissections' without first hand knowing the actual facts of the matter. And thus they will discredit or confuse such matters not to their liking, and accept only what information they will, while slighting and ignoring with any since of acceptance all evidence which would support what they do not wish to believe. Thus they muddle through volumes of data, which they can only show exists, but without any real understanding of how any of it does or does not relate to the matter in fact, other than it can certainly 'confuses' the matter with muddy muddle rather than taking the Church at its word in its authorized and published records. So now we are back to when is the word of the Church scripture or accepted as truth and when is it not? And if the Church publishes something that I do not agree with or question, then if I can discredit it with mere intellectual analysis or at least muddle it to the point of confusion, then I don't have to accept it. That is dangerous ground to be upon.
A number nit-pick and say that in one accounting the Prophet he didn't say that it was the 'last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites' and that it was added later and not part of the original account. Some muddle through the 'supposed evidence' and make varying assuptive conclusions including,thqt though the the history of Zelph was compiled under the direction of Joseph Smith and during his life time, that Joseph did not approve of read the historical account which was published in the Church's published history. They even go so far as to 'belittle' the word and writings of another Prophet in the process, saying that it was 'his' account used and it was changed and according to that prophet's evolved opinion rather than that of Joseph Smith, though Joseph Smith yet lived during the 1842 to 1843 dates of its preparation.
Now granted, the prophet never does write the account in his own hand writing as such. He has it prepared as part of the Church's history during his life time, which various people like to presume and assume various things about in order to put forth their own concepts and ideas which are at variance with the published works of the Chruch. Yet all along the trail and 'mounds' of the dead being traveled by Zion's Camp, the Prophet Joseph writes and tells his wife Emma that they are finding the remains of the Nephite people buried along the way. Where is the consistancy? If the remains of 'Nephites' are all along the trail from Ohio to Illinois in the mounds of the dead, then where else did they come from but from the last great struggles of the Lamanites and Nephites? The Nephite nation ceased to exist at the 385 AD date. The Mesoamerican theorist do not allow vast Nephite civilizations out side of the limited confines of the Mesoamercian arena. So where is the consistancy? The consistancy is that the Nephites did inhabit the lands of North America all the way to the land of Cumorah in New York, the land of there last stand. Therein lies the consistancy. Following is a qoute taken from one such preserved letters known to remain of that the Prophet wrote to his wife during 'Zion's Camp.'
Now, in particular, as in a court of Law which uses 'Corroborating Evidence' to substatiate the truthfulness and consistancy of a sworn testimony, this particular letter can be so analyzed and dissected to corroborate and substatiate the truth and correctness of the Church's published Zelph History. One requisit of 'corroporating evidence is that it must be ascertainable to relate to the testimony give. Relative 'timeliness' is one of the conditions that such corroboration has to meet. The story of Zelph begins on the morning of June 3rd, 1834 when the skeletal remains are unearth in one of the mounds. Joseph receives a vision from the almighty in answer to who this was and he also receives revelation about the up coming out break of cholera in the camp which he communicates to the camp at the noon hour. He also tells them of his answer concerning Zelph. And there is solid evidence that Joseph just did not repeat the telling of the Zelph vision only once but on various and separate ocasions. The very next day, on June 4th was when he wrote this particular letter to his wife Emma. It is certainly of a timely nature relative to the Zelph incident of just the day prior and could well be used to establish the Prophet state of mind and understanding at that particular point in time if the letter contained such information that related to the information stated in the Zelph account. Now, did any information in the Prophet's letter relate to and substantiate any of the information as given in the Zelph story as related in the History of the Church as prepared under the direction and supervision of the Prophet Joseph Smith himself? You have just read both the Zelph historical rendering published in the History of the Church by the church, and you have also just read the portion of the Prophet's letter to Emma. Do they coorelate and is there 'corroborating' support between the two statements? I should think it obvious, but I will analyze it point by point and phrase by phrase as I dissect at least five elements of corroboration. And let it also be stated, that the entire letter and entire writings and dealings of the Prophet Joseph Smith never does produce any conflicting evidences, only corroborative evidence.
Such an account would have to render the Zelph story to the effect that the Zelph incident did not occuring during the time frame of the History of the Book of Mormon but much later when only Lamnaites existed anywhere. That is, it was not a recounting of any Nephites at all, It would have to conclude that the mounds where not those of the ancient Nephites but only the mounds of the Lamanites. And then the Zelph story would not be 'divine evidence and proof of the history of the Book of Mormon at all, as it was only of a more recent period where just Lamanitish Indians where waring with other Lamanitish Indians. In such an accounting of the Zelph Story, there would be no points of 'corroboration' at all from the Emma Smith letter, and in fact the letter could be used as evidence against such a Zelph story as being in conflict with and inconsistant with everything that the Prophet had written his wife concerning their activities and state of mind reference the very next day after such a foriegn Zelph incident.
Yet such a straight forward and honest test is not undertaken by the Mesoamerican Theorist. Rather they must rely on such a 'muddling' analysis as provided by Kenneth W. Godfrey in which even Godfrey fails to present the facts of the matte clearly, little alone fairly. Such a 'muddled' effort to disavow the Zelph Story is hardly worth review here in the main sections of this presentation, thus I will only cover such in an appendix with the kind warning that reveling the details of Godfrey's 'muddled' effort is not a pretty thing, as it removes all the 'smoke,' 'mirrors,' and 'muddled fluff' of Godfrey's ugly, intentionally messy, and flawed analysis and dissection. And such a process is hardly faith building to involve one's self in when the truth of the matter can so easily be so presented and confirmed by proper utilization of the corroborative evidences of the matter as has been done here and throughout this entire Cumorah presentation.
Perhaps not to such others, but to me this one 'revelation' answers every question I have in mind about the possibility of a Mesoamerican Hill Cumorah. It is a 'revelation' from the Spirit of the Almighty. That is how we are able to receive any and all revelations from God, by his assigned Holy Messenger, the Holy Ghost. Joseph said that it was a revelation from God and I believe him. When Joseph writes this short account of his 'visions' of the past which included the identity of the skeletal remains of 'Zelph.' I believe him. When Joseph says that Zelph fought under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the eastern sea board of the Land of Cumorah in what we know as New York to the Rocky Mountains, I believe him. And when Joseph reports that in the last great struggle between the Lamanites and Nephites, Zelph was killed, I believe. And when he says that Zelph's death was caused by an arrow of those last battles, whose head is still found in the skeletal remain where they are buried them near the Illinois River, in the state of Illinois some miles south of one of those great bodies of water Lake Michigan, I believe Joseph Smith. Do you?
Then some may say, well that isn't 'scripture.' And they would be technically correct in that we haven't formally canonized it as such. Some treat the Conference messages of the brethren with similar disdain. But they are the words of those who by common consent we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. Yet do we really sustain them when we do not accept their messages and revelations? Many do the same with the Conference reports as they do with the revelations and words of the Prophet Joseph Smith. They pick and chose those which suit them and analytically quibble their way around the others.
Other revelations and visions could be added here which support the fact that the Hill Cumorah is where Chruch authorities have said it is, near Palmyra, New York. Brigham Young tells of the witness of Oliver Cowdery when he reports that in the very hill Cumorah where the plates where buried, that a room was opened up to Oliver and Joseph in which Mormon had deposited all the Nephite records. Martin Harris tells of encountering a traveler going to 'Cumorah' who was headed to Palmyra, New York. And there are many who recount the inspiration and overwhelming influence of the Spirit upon their soul as they visit Cumorah, partake of the spirit of that land, gazing out over such countryside as occasioned the destructions of the Jaredite and Nephite nations. And while these soft whisperins of such revelation by the spirt bares emotional witness, insightful visions, visitations, and revelations in their own right, I will leave them for the next section, which is where the 'authorities' speak out about where the location of the Hill Cumorah is located.
Hit Counter:
Return to Book of Mormon Geography Home Page
Return to Cumorah is Cumorah Home Page