Only in the United States? Erroneous List of Heartland Matches – Part III

Continuing from te last post, we find that another Heartland theorist, Jonathan Neville, who claims there was but one hill Cumorah, cites Oliver Cowdery’s Letter VII to W.W. Phelps for publication, containing the standard understanding to the Church regarding the final Nephite-Lamanite battle. This is another example of using a General Authority belief or opinions and claiming it is doctrinal because it had the possible backing of Joseph Smith—however, it has been said: “We should be careful not to claim for Joseph Smith perfections he did not claim for himself.

He need not have been superhuman to be the instrument in God’s hands that we know him to be. In May 1844 Joseph declared, “I never told you I was perfect, but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.”

Joseph was a mortal man striving to fulfill an overwhelming divinely appointed mission against all odds. The wonder is not that he ever displayed human failings, but that he succeeded in his mission. His fruits are both undeniable and incomparable (G. Todd Christofferson, “The Prophet Joseph Smith,” devotional, BYU Idaho, 24 September 2013, 14:15-15:30). 

Imperfect men have always run the Church, and imperfect men are subject to being inaccurate when the speak for themselves and not for God

 

To be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes. In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”

This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth. It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men (Dieter F. Uchdorf, “Come Join With Us,” General Conference, October 2013).

In an example of this, Oliver Cowdery (left) expands on a brief 107-word inserted statement by Mormon who wrote: “And it came to pass that my people, with their wives and their children, did now behold the armies of the Lamanites marching towards them; and with that awful fear of death which fills the breasts of all the wicked, did they await to receive them. And it came to pass that they came to battle against us, and every soul was filled with terror because of the greatness of their numbers. And it came to pass that they did fall upon my people with the sword, and with the bow, and with the arrow, and with the ax, and with all manner of weapons of war” (Mormon 6:7-9).

However, Oliver waxes poetic as he inserts a 1,038-word explanation of this event, expanding on what Mormon briefly narrated. Describing these events in his own wordage using his own opinions in wordage about ten times the amount of words as Mormon needed, Oliver puts words into the descriptive event neither inserted by Mormon nor intended.

Perhaps there can be no greater example of a General Authority (Oliver Cowdery was the First Counselor in the First Presidency to Joseph Smith at the time) using his own opinions to describe a scriptural event, where those words have been written and used time and again, even extended into a full book (Johnathan Neville, Letter VII, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, September 21, 2015), suggesting Church sponsorship and Joseph Smith agreement.

As George Q. Cannon, an early member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and who served in the First Presidency under four successive presidents of the church: Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Lorenzo Snow, put it: “Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop; an apostle, or a president; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place, they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone, and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. They could still see that He is just and true, that truth is lovely in His sight, and the pure in heart are dear to Him. Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men (George Q. Cannon, “Need For Personal Testimonies,” 15 February 1891; Collected Discourses 2:178; Millennial Star 53:658–659, 673–675).

Good but imperfect prophets are especially likely to be slandered. Nor are they immune from trials. In fact, of the responsibilities of priesthood leaders, the Prophet Joseph Smith said, “The higher the authority, the greater the difficulty of the station.” President John Taylor further said, “God tries people according to the position they occupy” (Neal A. Maxwell, Promise of Discipleship (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 2001), chapter 10).

Of course, we have prophets today. Will they lead us astray? Is that statement even true that they won't? The prophets will not lead us astray from the Gospel path. Can they be incorrect on other issues-even involving the Church? Yes, they can. When they claim revelation and follow proper procedures (vote of the Church) to make something binding, then we bow to that.

Brigham Young presented no formal revelation for implementing the priesthood restriction and there is none that can justify the ban's existence. When the prophets haven't received revelation and are perhaps just trying to do good of their own free will as has been divinely mandated (D&C 58:27-28), then it is possible that they may get something wrong. We all have our free agency (2 Nephi 2: 16, 27; 10:23;) and the doctrine of infallibility is in direct contradiction to free agency.

In addition, not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), are the official declarations and proclamations, along with the Articles of Faith.

On occasion, isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

The purpose of these comments is not to belittle leadership of the Church and/or highlight mistakes, if any, made. Once again, we state as so many Presidents and General Authorities before us have stated, that “God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes. In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men.” This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth. It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men.

The Final battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites as described by Oliver Cowdery

 

Therefore, it is foolhardy to rely on a single outburst of information, description, or series of claims that run contrary to the doctrines of the Church. Whether it be Oliver Cowdery in his Letter VII, Joseph Smith supporting John Lloyd Stephens conclusions about Mesoamerican ruins, or his forelorn letter to his wife describing crossing the Plains of the Nephites in Zion’s Camp. These are opinions, and there is not a single doctrinal support, in or out of the Book of Mormon to support these specific comments.

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols, Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, 1954–56, 3:203–204).

It is obvious, then, that Oliver Cowdery is using his own opinions to describe the final Nephite-Lamanite battle at the Hill Cumorah since it runs contrary to the doctrines of the Church—i.e., the Church has no official statement or position where Lehi landed, where the final battle took place, nor where the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon was located (only the Hill Cumorah where Joseph Smith obtained the plates).