Get your own Free Home PageTo go to the beginning, click here.
“(17) And behold, a curse shall come upon the land, saith the Lord of Hosts, because of the peoples’ sake who are upon the land, yea, because of their wickedness and their abominations. (18) And it shall come to pass, saith the Lord of Hosts, yea, our great and true God, that whoso shall find them again no more, because of the great curse of the land, save he be a righteous man and shall hide it up unto the Lord. (19) For I will, saith the Lord, that they shall hide up their treasures unto me: and cursed be they who hide not up their treasures unto me; for none hideth up their treasures unto me save it be the righteous; and he that hideth not up his treasures unto me, cursed is he, and also the treasure, and none shall redeem it because of the curse of the land. (20) And the day shall come that they shall hide up their treasures because they have set their hearts upon their riches, and will hide up their treasures when they shall flee before their enemies; because they will not hide them up unto me, cursed be they and also their treasures; and in that day shall they be smitten, saith the Lord.” (Helaman 13:17-20)
The problem Br. Clif finds is, quote: “Perhaps this is what Joseph Smith used as an excuse when he was not able to locate buried treasure for his clients while using his ‘seer stone’”. (Quote correct as of mid May 1998.)
* * * * *
There has been much anti-Mormon publicity about Joseph Smith treasure hunting as a youth. It appears Br. Clif has joined their one-sided bandwagon. Trying to discredit the Book of Mormon because of Joseph’s teenage treasure hunts is simply a mud-slinging smear campaign that serves no real purpose. Perhaps people should show valid, reliable quotes before accusing Joseph Smith of saying something.
The prophecy in Helaman 13:17-20 was made by Samuel the Lamanite in around 6 B.C. By looking at preceding verses (v. 12-16), it is evident the prophecies are aimed at Zarahemla, Gideon, and the Nephite lands and cities surrounding them. The prophecy was fulfilled in those lands in around 326 A.D., and is recorded in Mormon 1:18: “And these Gadianton robbers, who were among the Lamanites, did infest the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof began to hide up their treasures in the earth; and they became slippery, because the Lord had cursed the land, that they could not hold them, nor retain them again.” The Gadiaton “gang” had risen again, plundering and pillaging. The people, whose hearts were set on their riches, tried to protect them by hiding them in the ground. Because of their pride, setting their hearts more upon riches than upon Elohim, the land was cursed and their treasures not found. Thus, Helaman 13:17-20 was fulfilled.
Helaman 13:17-20 was aimed at people living in an area of Central America during the fourth century A.D. If someone hunting for pirate and Indian treasure in New England in the 1820’s used Helaman 13:17-20 (...a story about an ancient remnant of Israel hiding treasure which was cursed...) as an excuse, he probably would have been laughed out of town.
[Some Book of Mormon critics have greatly exaggerated the amount of “slippery treasure” mentioned in the record. They ask questions like, “Why does the Book of Mormon mention ‘slippery treasure’ so much’?” The phrase “so much” is the misleading part. Out of the 531 pages of a footnoted Book of Mormon, containing approximately 7434 verses, only 5 verses mention anything pertaining to “slippery treasure”: Helaman 13:17-20 and it’s fulfillment in Mormon 1:18. When someone comments that “so much” or “much” of the Book of Mormon includes “slippery treasure”, it sounds like the book almost revolves around it. Yet, only a speck of the record, around .067% of it, mentions “slippery treasure”. Such is a prime example of critics making gross distortions in their attempts to discredit the Book of Mormon.]
I have read both Mormon and anti-Mormon views about Joseph Smith’s treasure hunting and his “seer stone”. These are the conclusions I’ve come to concerning the matter:
1) Joseph Smith’s “seer stone” was not even used for the Book of Mormon translation (Solution 29).
2) Joseph Smith was not perfect. He even admitted it, and it’s recorded in the LDS Church History.... During his teen years, Joseph Smith fell into what he called “foolish errors”. Quote: “.... I was left to all kinds of temptations; and mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature. But I was guilty of levity, and sometimes associated with jovial company, etc., not consistent with that character which ought to be maintained by one who was called of God as I had been. But this will not seem very strange to any one who recollects my youth, and is acquainted with my native cheery temperament. In consequence of these things, I often felt condemned for my weakness and imperfections...” (History of the Church, Vol.1, Ch.2, Pg.8; see also History of the Church, Vol.3, Ch.3, Pg.29)
From what I’ve read, some people of that area and time who were struggling to make ends meet dabbled in “money digging”. Young Joseph was not immune. He later repented of and honestly confessed to his “foolish errors”. There are people who try to twist Joseph Smith’s youthful actions and make a big deal out of them. Yet, everyone needs to repent of something. ...So, he who is without sin may cast the first stone. Seeing how I did some irresponsible, thoughtless things as a teenager...and seeing how I still stumble...I guess that leaves me out.
3) If people wish to find fault with Joseph Smith, let’s view the Bible prophets by the same scrutiny. The Bible unfolds upon the sacred prophecies and actions of various prophets. How long would the Bible and it’s sacred words stand, if it’s prophets and patriarchs were viewed under the same fault-finding lens applied to Joseph Smith? Some examples: Gen. 9:20-21 (drunkenness); Gen. 12:12-19; 20:2-9 (deceit that brings sin to others); Gen. 26:7-10 (lying); Gen. 27 (deceit); Gen. 30:37-39 (“occult” superstition); Gen. 44:2-5 (using a cup to divine); Ex. 2:11-12 and Num. 27:12-14 (killing, rebelling against YHWH after he was a prophet...yet Deut. 34:10 calls him a great prophet); Numbers 5:11-31 (an ordeal relying on “magic”); Ex. 28:30; Num. 27:21; 1 Sam. 28:6 (relying on an instrument to receive answers from the LORD); 2 Kings 2:23-24 (this is a puzzle for many Christians); Matt. 26:33-35,58,69-75 (denying Yeshua). No doubt, some will find ways to defend the Bible patriarchs and prophets. If so, then the Mormons can do the same with Joseph Smith. The only perfect person who has lived upon this earth is the Messiah.
Again: Trying to discredit the Book of Mormon because of Joseph’s teenage treasure hunts is simply a mud-slinging smear campaign that serves no real purpose.
“(25) And now when ye talk, ye say: If our days had been in the days of our fathers of old, we would not have slain the prophets; we would not have stoned them, and cast them out. (26) Behold, ye are worse than they; for as the Lord liveth, if a prophet come among you and declareth unto you the word of the Lord, which testifieth of your sins and iniquities, ye are angry with him, and cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him; yea, you will say that he is a false prophet, and that he is a sinner, and of the devil, because he testifieth that your deeds are evil.” (Helaman 13:25-26)
The problem Br. Clif finds is: Compare that to Matt. 23:30-32 and Acts 7:51-52. (5/98)
* * * * *
Matt. 23:30-32: “(30) And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. (31) Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. (32) Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.”
Acts 7:51-52: “(51) Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as always your fathers did, so do ye. (52) Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:”
Those verses all describe a universal human nature. The Nephite peoples were sometimes just as hard-hearted and reluctant to accept prophets among them as the ancient Israelites were. Helaman 13:25-25 isn’t just some concept suddenly copied and interjected into the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon, from the beginning, plainly shows the Nephite generations rejecting the prophets sent among them. Samuel the Lamanite was accurately telling the Nephites about their self-righteousness. And Yeshua and Stephen accurately told the Jews about their self-righteousness.
There are basic tendencies and elements of human nature that are the same, regardless of where people live or when they live. For example, when people struggle for the basics of life they often humble themselves and turn to Father. Then He blesses them with prosperity. A generation or two later, the people are prideful and materialistic, forgetting the Commandments. The Bible and Book of Mormon show that happened in ancient times. I believe we can see it today in America, the most prosperous nation in the world.
Another similarity people have, regardless of place and time, is “self-righteousness”. It’s easy to look back at someone else’s transgressions and say, “I’d never have done that. I’d have known better.” Yet, when we are tried and tested in similar circumstances, we often fail miserably. People have been that way since the beginning. People of the Bible claimed to believe the prophets who came generations before. Yet they would rather continue in wickedness than accept a prophet called during their own generation. It happened among the Nephites of the ancient Americas, as was stated in Helaman 13:25-26. It’s happening to us today. We may think we are more righteous than the ancient Jews, but really we are no different.
“And behold, there shall a new star arise, such an one as ye never have beheld; and this also shall be a sign unto you.” (Helaman 14:5)
* *
“And it came to pass also that a new star did appear, according to the word.” (3 Nephi 1:21)
The problem Br. Clif finds is, quote: “Would this be seen in both hemispheres at the same time?” (Quote correct as of mid May 1998.)
* * * * *
Those verses don’t state they would see the star at the same time. The people in the Eastern and Western hemispheres certainly didn’t have night at the same time, so they could not have seen a star, at night (the usual time we see stars), at the same time.
With the earth’s rotation, all the peoples of the world had the opportunity to see the new star during the same 24 hour time period (i.e. day). During that “day”, it would have been new to those people who saw it. Take the wise men from the east (...who must have had prophecy about the new star also, even though they did not live in Judea...Matt. 2:1-2)-- Because of earth’s rotation, the wise men probably saw the new star hours before the people in Judea could. Yet, they did take note of the new star, even following it to the young Messiah. Similarly, the people in the America’s would have seen the star in the night sky hours after the people in Judea. It would have been new to them, and they took note of it. In that way, as the earth rotated, all the world had a chance to witness the new star during the same “day”.
As for any North/South difference that might effect the viewing of a star-- Look at a map of the world. Central America fairly straddles 15 degrees latitude north of the equator. Jerusalem sits between 31 and 32 degrees latitude north of the equator. Thus, both areas are north of the equator and are only around 16 to 17 degrees “apart”. A star visible in the night sky of Judea was also visible in the night sky of Central America. We’re not talking Alaska verses South Africa here. We’re talking Judea and Central America, both north of the equator, with Judea being only 16 to 17 degrees more north than Central America. Check it out on a map for yourself.
The star heralded the greatest event ever to take place on the earth: The birth of the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. Wouldn’t Father want all His children, throughout the world, to know that wonderful event had occurred? Certainly He would...and He made it possible for them to know. It was possible for the people of Central America, the people of Judea, and the people of “the east” to see the same new star during the same 24-hour period.
“And now behold, saith the Lord, concerning the people of the Nephites: If they will not repent, and observe to do my will, I will utterly destroy them, saith the Lord, because of their unbelief notwithstanding the many mighty works which I have done among them; and as surely as the Lord liveth shall these things be, saith the Lord.” (Helaman 15:17)
The problem Br. Clif finds is, quote: “Would not ‘the Lord’ have said, ‘...as surely as I liveth...’?” (Quote correct as of mid May 1998.)
* * * * *
How would the Bible hold up under the same line of questioning? Examples:
Genesis 18:13-14: “And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? Is anything too hard for the LORD?...” Would not the LORD have said, “...Is anything too hard for me?...”?
Genesis 35:1: “And God said unto Jacob, Arise, go up to Beth-el, and dwell there: and make there an altar unto God, that appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau they brother.” Would not God have said, “...make there an altar unto me...”?
Exodus 20:7: Exodus 20:1-2 makes it clear that the LORD is speaking. In verse 7 the LORD says: “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” Would not the LORD have said, “Thou shalt not take my name in vain, for I will not hold him guiltless that taketh my name in vain.”? Look at verse 3 which uses the term “me”, and at verse 5 which uses the terms “I” and “me”. Verse 7 is a sudden switch.
Those are only a few samples. Hmmm. It looks like the Bible has the same type of “problem” as the Book of Mormon. And in more places. (Why/How? Hint: Solution 52)
“(12) Now, behold, this Lachoneus, the governor, was a just man, and could not be frightened by the demands of a robber; therefore he did not hearken to the epistle of Giddianhi, the governor of the robbers, but he did cause that his people should cry unto the Lord for strength against the time that the robbers should come down against them...... (16) And so great and marvelous were the prophecies of Lachoneus that they did cause fear to come upon all the people; and they did exert themselves in their might to do according to the words of Lachoneus.” (3 Nephi 3:12, 16)
The problem Br. Clif finds is, quote: “Was this governor also a prophet?” (Quote correct as of mid May 1998.)
* * * * *
Yes, he was. It’s possible for there to be multiple prophets in one area at the same time. A prime example of this is found in the Old Testament, in 1 Kings. It is obvious Elijah was the leading prophet of his day. However, the prophet Micaiah was a contemporary of Elijah. King Jehoshaphat of Judah called upon him for advice (1 Kings 22:7-28). Also, 1 Kings 18:4 mentions how Obadiah “took an hundred prophets, and hid them by fifty in a cave”.
We are encouraged to be prophets pertaining to our own matters and to be prophets for the organizations we preside over. Thus, Lachoneus, as governor, was entitled to prophecy concerning his people. See also Solution 8.
“(24) Now I would have you to remember also, that there were none who were brought unto repentance who were not baptized with water. (25) Therefore, there were ordained of Nephi, men unto this ministry, that all such as should come unto them should be baptized with water, and this as a witness and a testimony before God, and unto the people, that they had repented and received a remission of their sins. (26) And there were many in the commencement of this year that were baptized unto repentance; and thus the more part of the year did pass away.” (3 Nephi 7:24-26)
The problem Br. Clif finds is, quote: “Though it is fuzzy, verse 25 makes it clear that the remission of sins came before baptism, not during, as is currently believed and taught in the Mormon Church.” (Quote correct as of mid May 1998.)
* * * * *
Interesting how something can be fuzzy and clear at the same time....
If someone was searching for a verse to twist with their own interpretation, verse 25 would be an easy one. However, it’s not clear that verse 25 states remission comes before baptism. What is clear is, verse 25 states baptism is a witness and a testimony that a person has repented and received a remission of their sins. That still leaves room for baptism to precede remission.
Br. Clif tries to make the LDS doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins seem against the Book of Mormon. But the attempt condemns itself when further Book of Mormon evidence is presented: 2 Nephi 31:17--“Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.” 3 Nephi 1:23--“And it came to pass that Nephi went forth among the people, and also many others, baptizing unto repentance, in the which there was a great remission of sins.” 3 Nephi 12:2--“...blessed are they who shall believe in your words, and come down into the depths of humility and be baptized, for they shall be visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and shall receive a remission of their sins.” Moroni 8:25--“And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins;” (All bold added by me.) The Book of Mormon clearly shows baptism came before remission of sins, as is currently believed and taught in the LDS Church.
Baptism for the remission of sins in the Bible: Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16. It’s baptism for the remission of sins, not the remission of sins for baptism. Baptism comes first.
“And now it came to pass that according to our record, and we know our record to be true, for behold, it was a just man who did keep the record -- for he truly did many miracles in the name of Jesus; and there was not any man who could do a miracle in the name of Jesus save he were cleansed every whit from his iniquity --” (3 Nephi 8:1)
The problem Br. Clif finds is, quote: “”Miracles in the name of ‘Jesus’ could only be performed by ‘holy ‘ men? I seem to remember a New Testament story where some men were performing miracles using the name of ‘Jesus.’ It does not say they were holy or ordained for the task, yet ‘Jesus’ says, in so many words, ‘Leave ‘em alone.’” (Quote correct as of mid May 1998.)
* * * * *
Bro. Cliff is referring to Mark 9:38-40: “(38) And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. (39) But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. (40) For he that is not against us is on our part.” Also note the same story as told in Luke 9:49-50: “(49) And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. (50) And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.” (Bold added by me to compare both Mark 9:38-40 and Luke 9:49-50 with Br. Clif’s statement. Note that the verses only mention one man, specifically stating “one” and “he” ....not “some men” and “they” as Br. Clif stated.]
3 Nephi 8:1 does not specifically say only a holy man could do miracles in the name of Jesus. It does say the keeper of the record was a just man, and that one could not do miracles in the name of Jesus unless he was cleansed from his sins. Thus, someone could infer that only one who was spiritually pure could perform such miracles. And “spiritually pure” = “holy”.
Mark 9:38-40 does not specifically state the man was holy or ordained for the task of casting out devils. However, I think it’s possible to infer that he was a just man who was cleansed of his sins (cleansed from sins = spiritually pure = holy). It doesn’t make sense to think an active commandment-breaker, who was uncleansed, would be able to perform miracles. It does make sense that someone who kept the commandments, who was humble and repentant, would be able to perform miracles. Therefore, the man who was performing the miracles must have been just and cleansed from his sins....which agrees with 3 Nephi 8:1.
It’s possible the man in question held the priesthood through the “chain” effect, where priesthood holders can ordain other worthy men to the priesthood. The man was not one of the disciples who followed Yeshua as he ministered from city to city. (Note Luke 9:49 uses the phrase “...because he followeth not with us”.) But if he was truly able to perform miracles in the name of Yeshua, he must have had the authority and faith to do so...
Acts 19:13-16 shows what happened to some pretenders: “(13) Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. (14) And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did also. (15) And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? (16) And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.” Those vagabond Jews certainly didn’t have true authority nor true faith to cast out the evil spirit. Note in verse 13 they took it upon themselves, so they were not properly called nor ordained. When they tried to use the name of Jesus to cast out the evil spirit, it did not recognize them nor their authority because they had none. Thus, the evil spirit, through the man, drove them out.
If the man in Mark 9:38 was truly able to cast out a devil, he could not have been a pretender such as the Jews in Acts 19:13-16. Therefore, the man must have had the authority and faith to perform such miracles. He may not have been among the disciples who followed Yeshua from city to city, but he could not have cast out devils with the name of Jesus if he had been a pretender.
Bruce R. McConkie compared Mark 9:38-40 with Bible verses from Matthew and Luke, and gave his view in “Doctrinal New Testament Commentary” Vol.1, Pg.417: “On a previous occasion, Jesus taught that neither Satan nor his false ministers can cast out devils, for "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; . . . And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself." (Matt. 12:25-30.) Now he adds in plainness what was necessarily implied in his previous discourse that only those who follow him and are legal administrators in his kingdom can perform the miracle of casting out devils in his name. [Mark 9:38. He followeth not us] He was not one of the Twelve to whom the express power had been given to cast out devils (Matt. 10:8); he was not one of the inner circle of disciples who traveled, ate, slept, and communed continually with the Master. Luke has it: "He followeth not with us"; that is, he is not one of our traveling companions. But from our Lord's reply it is evident that he was a member of the kingdom, a legal administrator who was acting in the authority of the priesthood and the power of faith. Either he was unknown to John who therefore erroneously supposed him to be without authority or else John falsely supposed that the power to cast out devils was limited to the Twelve and did not extend to all faithful priesthood holders. It is quite possible that the one casting out devils was a seventy. There is no New Testament record of the calling of the first quorum of seventy, but when Jesus (at a later day) called a second quorum of seventy into the ministry, he expressly gave them the power to cast out devils. (Luke 10:1-20.)”
3 Nephi 8:1 does not contradict Mark 9:38-40.
Get your own Free Home Page