To go to the beginning, click here.
“And the God of our fathers, who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, and also were preserved in the wilderness by him, yea, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yieldeth himself, according to the words of the angel, as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up, according to the words of Zenock, and to be crucified, according to the words of Neum, and to be buried in a sepulchre, according to the words of Zenos, which he spake concerning the three days of darkness, which would be a sign given of his death unto those who inhabit the isles of the sea, more especially given unto those who are of the house of Israel.” (1 Nephi 19:10)
The problem Br. Clif finds is: No writings by Zenock, Neum and Zenos have been found, even with the fact that we have the Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Library, and a host of other surviving literature. If writings by Zenock, Neum and Zenos were in the Brass Plates, they should have been widely accepted among the people who preserved the Hebrew-Chaldee scriptures. (He finds it embarrassing that no modern-day discoveries include writings by Zenock, Neum or Zenos.) (date: 5/98)
* * * * *
There are many writings mentioned in the Bible that haven’t been found either, even with the fact that we have the Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. Missing writings do not make something false. If so, then the Bible would be false. The discovery of previously unknown writings, as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, leaves open the probability that “new” writings will be found. Those ancient texts were found by accident. More ancient literature could be found, out there somewhere, in equally unexpected circumstances.
Using the Dead Sea Scrolls as an example: The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls began in 1947, when Bedouin shepherds accidentally found seven manuscripts in a cave. Scientists explored the area and found neighboring man-made caves containing numerous other manuscripts. Some 800 scrolls were discovered, but were badly deteriorated. Many had disintegrated. About 600 of the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts survived to be dubbed “The Dead Sea Scrolls”. The salvageable manuscripts included many known writings, such as Isaiah. They also included many “new” writings that no modern person knew existed. Around 50 years later, scientists were hopeful that more similar discoveries would be found. According to the August 11, 1995 Associated Press article, “Archaeologists discover untouched Dead Sea caves”, more caves had been found in the area. Because the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in such bad shape, the chances of finding more scrolls in good condition were slim. Because the area had been extensively excavated after the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, the discovery of more caves surprised the experts.
Chances are good that sometime, somewhere, someone will stumble upon more ancient manuscripts. I am looking forward to such new discoveries, because there are missing scriptures mentioned in the Bible. Missing scripture from the Old Testament include writings by Nathan and Gad (1 Chron. 29:29), prophecy of Ahijah and visions of Iddo (2 Chron. 9:29). See more in Num. 21:14; Josh. 10:13; 1 Sam. 10:25; 2 Sam. 1:18; 1 Kings 11:41; 2 Chron. 33:19. There are also missing writings that were used as scripture and instruction during New Testament times. See 1 Cor. 5:9; Eph. 3:3; Col. 4:16; Jude 1:3,14. Matthew’s mention of Nazareth as the abode of Jesus, “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene” (Matt. 2:23) --when considered with the fact that no such saying of the prophets is found in any of the Old Testament books-- is further evidence of lost scripture. Those writings are still missing, even after such splendid discoveries as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library.
The Jews and early Christians had many more books of scripture than we use today. Yet, the Council of Carthage considered only some of them worthy to include in today’s Bible. Plus, as I showed above, some of the ancient scripture mentioned in the Bible is missing altogether! Thus, the same reasoning Br. Clif uses to condemn the Book of Mormon can also condemn the Bible! Using Br. Clif’s reasoning-- If writings by Nathan, Gad, Ahijah and Iddo were included in ancient canon, they should have been accepted by the people who preserved the books of the Bible...Therefore, we should have those books today...But since those books haven’t been found, we should be embarrassed about it and consider the Bible a fake. [I’m not embarrassed about the missing writings of the Bible. I consider the Bible to be genuine scripture. However, the arguement about missing scripture that Br. Clif uses against the Book of Mormon can also be used against the Bible.]
The Dead Sea Scrolls included at least fragments of all the books we find in today’s Bible --EXCEPT the book of Esther. Since the book of Esther survived to be included in our Bible, someone did esteem it highly enough to preserve it. However, it seems Esther was not part of the Qumran canon of scripture. Why not?: (1) Perhaps the Qumran sect didn’t have a copy of Esther because they didn’t consider it to be scripture (similar to how the Epistle of Barnabas --cherished by early Christians-- was left out of the New Testament). (2) Perhaps their copy of Esther had disintegrated among the badly deteriorated manuscripts. (3) Perhaps it is still hidden away somewhere. ....Perhaps all those possibilities apply to the writings of Zenock, Neum and Zenos, AND to the writings of Nathan, Gad, Ahijah and Iddo (and other missing scripture of in the Bible) since they have not been discovered among other ancient writings...yet...
Do I think the Bible is a fake because it refers to many missing books of scripture? No, of course not. I consider it to be genuine scripture. Likewise, just because the Book of Mormon refers to a couple books of missing scripture does not make it false. Am I going to doubt the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and be embarrassed, because of the missing scripture they refer to? Nope, not even for a second.
Unexpected discoveries happen. It is probable that more ancient documents will be discovered in the future. Perhaps the writings of Zenock, Neum and Zenos --along with the Bible’s missing writings by Nathan, Gad, Ahijah and others-- will be among them.
“Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.” (2 Nephi 31:8)
The problem Br. Clif finds is: This verse of the Book of Mormon seems to conflict with a teaching of Joseph Smith, Jr. who translated it. The Book of Mormon states that the Holy Ghost descended upon Christ in the form of a dove. Yet, Joseph Smith taught, “...the Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove, or rather in the sign of a dove....The sign of the dove was instituted before the creation of the world, a witness for the Holy Ghost...The Holy Ghost is a personage, and is in the form of a personage. It does not confine itself to the form of a dove, but in sign of the dove. The Holy Ghost cannot be transformed into a dove; but the sign of a dove was given to John to signify the truth of the deed, as the dove is an emblem or token of truth and innocence.” (The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp.275-276) (date: 5/98)
* * * * *
Joseph Smith taught that the Holy Ghost did not “change itself” into a dove. Rather, the sign of a dove is a witness for the Holy Ghost. That method of witnessing had been established before the creation of the world.
According to Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, there are at least 19 possible definitions of the word “form”. Definition 1 is, quote: “...1a: the shape and structure of something....b: a body (as of a person) esp. in its external appearance...” This is one of the most common definitions of the word “form”. If this is the definition we use in 2 Nephi 31:8, above, then it conflicts with the teachings of it’s translator, Joseph Smith.
However, examining the 18 other definitions of the word “form”, there is also: “...3a: established method of expression or proceeding : procedure according to rule or rote...” -and- “...5a: conduct regulated by extraneous controls (as of custom or etiquette)...”
I think 3a is the best one to use here. Using definition 3a of the word “form”, and plugging it into 2 Nephi 31:8 to replace the word “form”, the verse might read something like this: “Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the [established method of expression] of a dove.”
That sounds a lot like what Joseph Smith was teaching in his statement above. But wait, there’s more. Notice the word “expression” is part of definition 3a for the word “form”. When I looked up the word “expression” in my little home dictionary, I found that one of the definitions for “expression” is: “something that represents or symbolizes : SIGN...”
THERFORE-- Taking definition 3a for “form”, plus the above definition of “expression”, --and plugging them into 2 Nephi 31:8 to replace the word “form”-- the verse could read something like:
“Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the [established sign] of a dove.”
That sounds just like what Joseph Smith was teaching in his statement! (To compare and contrast, look back at the actual verse 2 Nephi 31:8 and the quote from Joseph Smith.) ...There is no contradiction between 2 Nephi 31:8 and Joseph Smith’s teachings about the Holy Ghost.
So, unfortunately, he doesn’t have an exact quote to use against Jacob 7:21.
I am keeping my eyes open for that quote. I think he gave sufficient information
about it, that I should recognize it if I see it. If I find it, I will comment on it here.
“And there were exceedingly many prophets among us. And the people were a stiffnecked people, hard to understand.” (Enos 1:22)
The problem Br. Clif finds is: “God provides more than one prophet at a time, even from ground-level membership, when it will take more than one to declare the warning.” He says the LDS Church lacks this, stating (quote): “...the President of the Church...monopolizes the prophecy ‘market’.” He also claims that we do not see members in good-standing sounding the voice of warning to the disobedient Church. He also states, quote: “It’s a pity they [prophets in a plural sense] are not found in the Mormon Church.” (Quotes correct as of mid May 1998.)
* * * * *
Using the LDS and Biblical definitions of what a prophet is, there are many prophets both in and out of the LDS Church. Plus, members in good-standing do sound a voice of warning to each other. I will: (1) Look at the church that existed among the Nephites during Enos’ time; (2) Examine the preaching and teaching done among members of the LDS Church; (3) Look at the LDS view of prophets and prophecy today.
(1) I will only briefly mention this now, because it comes up again in Solution 14. However, during the time of Enos, the Nephites had no formal, structured religious organization. A formal church structure was not organized among the people until Alma I. Therefore, when Enos wrote “and the people”, he was not writing about a formal structured church body, because there was none. He was writing about the Nephite people in general.
Members of the LDS Church are encouraged to share messages of Christ and salvation with people in general. They are counseled to do that with a spirit of peace and love, not in angry contention.
(2) Members of the LDS Church do deliver messages of warning to each other, including their leaders, to keep each other “in the fear of the Lord”. I have attended LDS churches in various cities in Illinois, South Dakota, Maine, Oklahoma, Iowa and North Dakota. In each church, the messages had the same undercurrent of warning: repentance and faith in Christ. Such talks, most often given by “ground-level” members, are for the edification of the leaders present as well as the general congregation.
During the main LDS Sunday service (“Sacrament Service”), “ground-level” members deliver such messages to the entire congregation, leaders included. Say a high ranking LDS Church official is having a challenge keeping a particular commandment--say he sometimes “bears false witness” against others. And say he’s attending an LDS sacrament meeting where a “ground-level” member is speaking about the importance of honesty and integrity. Should the “ground-level” member’s words pierce the leader’s heart in remembrance of his sins, and bring him to repentance? YES!--along with any others to whom the chastisement applies.
LDS Sunday School is also taught by “ground-level” members, and attended by leaders who sit among the rest of the adults while the “ground-level” member teaches. Say that same Church official is sitting in Sunday School, and the lesson (given by a “ground-level” member) includes a moral of honesty and integrity. Should the leader’s heart be pierced unto repentance? YES!--along with any others to whom the chastisement applies.
Now-- If a member of a church begins to attack the basic doctrines of their church, and preaches their church is disobedient because of that foundation, that church is going to take steps to protect itself. That holds true whether the member would be Mormon, Lutheran, Methodist, or whatever.
However-- If I give a talk in an LDS Church meeting (or write a book) about how the Second Coming of the Messiah is near, and how we must all repent of our sins and prepare, I am positive I would not “get in trouble” for it. In fact, I know it would be welcome and well-received by all because I have done it. I’ve spoken formally in LDS church meetings on numerous occasions, while the leaders of the congregation sat listening within 5 feet of where I stood... And I’ve had leaders approach me afterwards and say things like, “I learned ____ & ____ from you today,” and “I never thought of it like that before.”
As I type this in May 1998, there is a popular book circulating among LDS people. The novel, titled Secrets, explores the issues of abuse and how it often has not been understood by LDS priesthood leaders. This book was not written by “the Prophet”. It was not written by any of “the 12”. It was written by an average, everyday member of the LDS Church. Yet, that book has pierced the hearts of many LDS leaders as they see mistakes they made and may have made. I saw a local LDS Church leader stand humbly before his congregation and formally ask anyone he may have wronged (through his lack of understanding of abuse) to forgive him...after he read that book. That book, written tactfully by an average, everyday member of the LDS Church, has become a voice of warning among the LDS leadership.
The LDS Church does permit Father to work through ground-level members to sound a voice of warning and repentance to a congregation, or even to the whole LDS Church.
(3) As I mentioned in Solution 2, any organization that wants to operate successfully often has a system of graded leadership (i.e. delegation of responsibility and authority). Examples of this include the military, businesses and corporations, and even the family. Even mainstream Christian churches use this to an extent--I have heard radio preachers tell Christians to follow and support their pastors and ministers. Likewise, members of the LDS Church are counseled to follow and support their leaders. There must be an organized delegation of leadership responsibility and authority. Elohim is organized and orderly, not haphazard and confusing.
Delegation of leadership responsibility and authority exists at all levels of leadership in the LDS Church. It is the responsibility of the President of the Church (assisted by his Counselors) to preside over the worldwide membership of the Church, and he has the necessary authority to do so. It is his responsibility to receive instruction for, and give instruction to, the worldwide membership. ...It is the responsibility of a Bishop (assisted by his Counselors) to preside over the members of his congregation, and he has the necessary authority to do so. It is his responsibility to receive instruction for, and give instruction to, the members of his congregation. It is not the Bishop’s job nor responsibility to run the worldwide LDS Church--Therefore, it is not his job nor responsibility to receive instruction for, and give instruction to, the worldwide LDS Church. Again, it is simply a matter of organization and delegation of responsibility, with corresponding authority to carry out the responsibility.
Bruce R. McConkie, a former LDS Apostle, wrote about prophecy and the delegation of responsibility and authority. While his book, Mormon Doctrine, is not an official document of the LDS Church, it does offer an accurate LDS view of the subject of prophecy, responsibility and authority. Quote from page 606: “There are, of course, ranks and grades of prophetic responsibility and authority. Every member of the Church should be a prophet as pertaining to his own affairs.....Prophecy is one of the gifts of the Spirit to which all the saints are entitled (1 Cor. 12:10), and faithful members of the Church are exhorted to ‘covet to prophesy.’ (1 Cor. 14:39.) ..... Those who hold offices in the Church, however, should be prophets both as pertaining to their own affairs and the affairs of the organization over which they preside. A quorum president should be a prophet to his quorum, a bishop to his ward, a stake president to his stake. Members of the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, and the Patriarch to the Church are all sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators to the Church. Any new revelation for the Church would, of course, be presented to the people by the President of the Church, he being the mouthpiece of God on earth. (D. & C. 21:1-7.) ‘Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.’ (Amos 3:7.)....Apostles and prophets are the foundation upon which the organization of the true Church rests. (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 2:20.)....” End quote. (Bold added by me.)
Using that “definition”, the President of the LDS Church (and his Counselors) do not monopolize the prophecy market. ALL members of the Church are entitled to prophecy. Furthermore, not only the President, but also his Counselors, the Council of the Twelve, and the Patriarch to the Church are ALL sustained as prophets, seers and revelators to the LDS Church. A Stake President should be a prophet to his stake, and a Bishop a prophet to his ward, etc. The structure of this is simply a matter of organization and delegation of responsibility, with corresponding authority to carry out the responsibility.
Furthermore, “...no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost” (1 Cor. 12:3) and, “...the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Revelation 19:10). The testimony that Yeshua is the Messiah is divinely inspired. And what do we call someone who makes divinely inspired statements?--A prophet! Elder Wilford Woodruff said, "[Brigham Young] is a prophet, I am a prophet, you are, and anybody is a prophet who has the testimony of Jesus Christ, for that is the spirit of prophecy" (Journal of Discourses 13:165; Bold added by me.)
There is no shortage of prophets in the LDS Church. Using the definitions and examples above, it is even possible to say there are “exceedingly many” prophets, both in and out of the LDS Church.
“And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah, there was a large stone brought unto him with engravings on it; and he did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of God.” (Omni 1:20)
* *
“And they brought a record with them, even a record of the people whose bones they had found; and it was engraven on plates of ore.” (Mosiah 21:27)
The problem Br. Clif finds is: Those two descriptions contradict each other. (5/98)
* * * * *
Of course the descriptions in Omni 1:20 and Mosiah 21:27 contradict! They are two different records found by two different peoples at two different times, and given to two different kings! Anyone who has truly read and followed the events in the Book of Mormon would know that! To explore this further I will summarize the migrations and the time line surrounding those two verses. Here is a diagram to clarify them:
Omni 1:12 to Mosiah 24 tells basically about two groups of people: (1) A group, led by Mosiah, who broke off from the main body of Nephites, left the land of Nephi and settled in the land of Zarahemla; (2) A group, led by Zeniff, who broke off from Mosiah’s group to return to the land of Nephi.
Feel free to examine Omni 1:12-Mosiah 24 for yourself. There are some “pause buttons” that go off and on as the accounts of the groups nest inside each other. So feel free to grab a pencil and make your own diagram to follow the migrations, search parties, and other events. It suffices me to write:
Omni 1:20 is about a large engraved stone that was brought to King Mosiah I while he was in Zarahemla, quote: “And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah, there was a large stone brought unto him with engravings on it; and he did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of God.”
Forty-six pages later, Mosiah 21:27 is about a set of ore plates that were found by a search party and taken to King Limhi who was in the land of Nephi. Limhi was telling Ammon about the plates, quote: “And they brought a record with them, even a record of the people whose bones they had found; and it was engraven on plates of ore.” ..and the next verse says... “And now Limhi was again filled with joy on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king Mosiah [King Mosiah II, the grandson of the King Mosiah in Omni 1:20] had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings; yea, and Ammon also did rejoice.”
Of course the description in Omni 1:20 conflicts with the description given in Mosiah 21:27!!! That is because they are descriptions of two different records found by two different groups of people at two different times -- and even given to two different kings!!!
[If you read the account in a Book of Mormon, you may notice during the first conversation between King Limhi and Ammon the plates are described as being pure gold (Mosiah 8:9). A “pause button” is turned on, and the history of King Limhi’s people is told. Then the “pause button” is turned off, and the conversation between Limhi and Ammon continues. After that “pause button” is switched off, those same gold plates are described as being ore (Mosiah 21:27). Before you get too excited about that “contradiction”, let me pull out my encyclopedia.... According to World Book Encyclopedia, there are two types of ores: native metals and compound ores. The article then lists gold as a native metal. Thus-- “ore = a natural metal = gold”, and thus “ore = gold”. So there is no contradiction.]
Get your own Free Home Page