Share This Episode
Viewpoint on Mormonism Bill McKeever  Logo

Stand on the Rock of Revelation Part 5

Viewpoint on Mormonism / Bill McKeever
The Truth Network Radio
October 9, 2020 12:42 pm

Stand on the Rock of Revelation Part 5

Viewpoint on Mormonism / Bill McKeever

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 662 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


October 9, 2020 12:42 pm

We take a closer look at the problems from an article in the October 2020 Ensign magazine written by Lawrence E. Corbridge, an emeritus Seventy.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Viewpoint on Mormonism
Bill McKeever
Viewpoint on Mormonism
Bill McKeever
Viewpoint on Mormonism
Bill McKeever
Viewpoint on Mormonism
Bill McKeever
Viewpoint on Mormonism
Bill McKeever
Viewpoint on Mormonism
Bill McKeever

The teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints viewpoint when Mormonism is sponsored by Mormonism research ministry since 1979 Mormonism research ministry has been dedicated to equipping the body of Christ with answers regarding the Christian faith in a manner that expresses gentleness and respect. And now, your host for today's viewpoint on Mormonism hoping you're having a very pleasant Friday. Welcome to this addition of viewpoint on Mormonism. I'm your host, Bill McKeever, founder and director Mormonism research ministry and with me today is Eric Johnson, my colleague, M. R.

M this week we been looking at an article titled stand on the rock of revelation.

It's in the October 2020 addition of enzyme magazine. It was originally a devotional that was given by Elder Lawrence E core bridge, and he's described as an emeritus member of the 70 he gave a talk back in January 22, 2019. The devotional address titled stand forever, and this is basically the transcript from that talk that he gave were going to continue our thought from yesterday's program and this is under the heading primary questions and secondary questions and what he's going to do is he's really going to chide members who focus more on what he calls secondary questions rather than focusing on the primary questions that Latter Day Saints should be asking. Should they be having some doubts about their faith. Let's go through those four primary questions. Again, Eric for listeners so they understand clearly what were going to be talking about today.

First question is there a God who is our father.

Second is Jesus Christ the son of God, the Savior of the world. Third was Joseph Smith the Prophet fourth is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the kingdom of God on earth. And then he goes on into what he calls the secondary questions and he says, by contrast, the secondary questions are on ending. I would think he's correct in that assumption because there are a lot of areas that I personally feel could cause many Latter Day Saints to doubt their faith. There is a number of areas.

He lives just a few. What is the last church history plural marriage, people of African descent in the priesthood, women in the priesthood. The translation of the book of Mormon, the pearl of great price DNA in the book of Mormon gay marriage different accounts of the first vision and on and on. He downplays the secondary questions in this article, but I would say these become very crucial if you're going to believe points number three and four in his primary question list was Joseph Smith the Prophet and is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the kingdom of God on earth.

Look, for instance, some of the things that were said about the first vision were going to focus on what Gordon B.

Hinckley had to say about the first vision and the reason why this is important is because even though he says different accounts of the first vision I'm going to say that when he mentions the different accounts of the first vision, first of all, and thankfully he recognizes that there are different accounts of the first vision.

But why does it become problematic for a member of the church. I think it's very simple. Once an individual goes through and looks at the different ways Joseph Smith describes this first vision and how in some areas.

He contradicts himself. It causes the member to wonder. This even happened at all that becomes problematic for the member.

Because once a member comes to realize that the first vision has been completely made up by Joseph Smith, and I believe he did make it up that causes a member to lose faith in Joseph Smith being a prophet. That's why I think this is much more important than Mr. core bridges leading on. Let's look at just some of the things that Gordon B. Hinckley had to say about the first vision the first quote I want to give you is from the enzyme magazine, a conference addition. From November 2002, page 80. This is what he said. Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur if it did not.

In this work is a fraud upon that unique and wonderful experience stands the validity of this church.

If it did not then this work is a fraud.

Gordon B.

Hinckley seems to understand the seriousness of this event in Mormon history again even though early Latter Day Saints never knew about this because it wasn't discussed. Joseph Smith never brought up the first vision and we don't see anything written in a church publication and put out publicly till way late almost 20 years after it allegedly happened but think Gordon B.

Hinckley's quote is given another statement on this and this is found in the teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, page 227 he said that becomes the hinge pin on which this whole cause turns if the first vision was true. If it actually happened in the book of Mormon is true, then we have the priesthood, then we have the church organization and all the other keys and blessings of authority which we say we have. If the first vision did not occur, then we are involved in a great sham. It is just that simple. So he says it's not only a fraud if it didn't happen. It's also a shame them if it did not happen and Bill, I would say the second part of that quote is going to be true for everybody but the first part.

It's not going to make Mormonism true. Just because the first vision is true, there might be a splinter group of Mormonism that holds to the first vision that that church is true. So you're making an assumption when you say that the whole Mormon story is true. Just because the first vision is true to give you another quote by Gordon B. Hinckley, and this was in conference reports October 1961, it can be found on page 116 very similar to the other statements that he makes, but he uses a different word to describe it. He says I would like to say that this cause is either true or false. Either this is the kingdom of God or it is a sham and a delusion either.

Joseph talked with the father and the son or he did not. If he did not.

We are engaged in blasphemy.

Notice again what Gordon B. Hinckley says about the importance of this first vision. If it did not happen this work. The LDS church is a fraud if it did not happen then Latter Day Saints are involved in a great sham and then he also says if this first Vision Did Not Take Pl., Latter Day Saints are engaged in blasphemy. That sounds pretty serious to me, this is why I would not look at the first vision is merely being a secondary issue or secondary question. This should be a primary issue with all Latter Day Saints here exactly right. And we talked about it yesterday, but question three. If that's eliminated was Joseph Smith the Prophet and he did not have a first vision, and as these quotes are shown the whole of religion is a sham, then numbers one, two and four are all going to go away as well.

One other issue that we can talk about here. That is a cornerstone of the LDS church is the book of Mormon, the book of Mormon being a true Scripture and he listed there that the translation of the book of Mormon. But what does Jeffrey R.

Holland have to say about the importance of the book of Mormon. Well, he said in December 2002 in the enzyme magazine on page 14.

He said to consider that everything of saving significance in the church stands or falls on the truthfulness of the book of Mormon and by implication the Prophet Joseph Smith's account of how it came forth is as sobering as it is true it is a sudden death proposition. Either the book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this church and its founder are false.

A deception from the first instance. Onward, Joseph Smith must be accepted either as a prophet of God, or else is a charlatan of the first order but no one should tolerate any ludicrous, even laughable middleground about the wonderful contours of a young boy's imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase that is an unacceptable position to take morally, literally and historically or theologically, and this is what I find fascinating. Mr. core bridge qualifies the book of Mormon that it's mere existence, but he puts in their the translation of the book of Mormon and then he also puts DNA in the book of Mormon. Why do these become important will it's because many Latter Day Saints have been led to believe that Joseph Smith had real plates and that he needed these plates in order to give us the book of Mormon. These plates were given to him by the angel Moron I even risked his life in getting these plates according to the narrative he was attacked once he was trying to bring these plates home but yet the translation of the book of Mormon has become controversial because the church had for years given the impression that Joseph Smith was looking at these plates through the what's known as the euro and Thummim the spectacle looking device that allowed him to translate the alleged reformed Egyptian into English. There were even pictures of him looking directly at the plates running his fingers across the plates as if he was reading the reformed Egyptian off to his scribe who was writing down the translation into English from the reformed Egyptian yet now we find that the churches come clean and admitted officially that he used a seer stone and he didn't even need to look at the plates he was looking at a rock and the rock was giving him. Instead, the interpretation of the characters and he would reap that interpretation to describe this cause a lot of problems for many Latter Day Saints because that's not the way they were originally told the book of Mormon came about. Where were they getting this information for many years.

They were getting that from people such as ourselves. Those were critical of the Mormon church and I don't want to say that the stone in the hat was never discussed, because it certainly was Russell M.

Nelson was one of those who didn't talk about it in one of the talks that he gave years ago but it wasn't something that was emphasized when it comes to DNA in the book of Mormon. If you are going to believe the book of Mormon narrative than we have to believe that the American Indians have a Hebrew ancestry.

But that is not what DNA has shown this causes a lot of problems for Latter Day Saints.

Once they find this information to be true because the truth of that information tends to tell them that the book of Mormon is false. Having talked to a lot of people have left the LDS church.

Perhaps the number one reason why they leave would be the pearl of great price that he mentions here and I think he's probably referring to the book of Abraham. Here's another instance where if Joseph Smith really could translate as he said he did with the book of Mormon, but we don't have the plates we don't have any autograph material to be able to help us to understand if whether or not he translated these book of Mormon place accurately but in 1835 he purchased the book of Abraham, papyrus, and he supposedly translated it, and those were lost for many years and it wasn't until the 1960s that it was rediscovered in the Metropolitan Museum in New York and what do the scholars believe that it was common funeral proprietary and that Joseph Smith did not have the ability to translate this literally. And so the church came out with the gospel topic essay that said it was not a literal translation. It was a spiritual translation.

This is a major problem because if he could not of translated the book of Abraham properly. How do we know that he could've translated the book of Mormon properly and you're absolutely correct. Latter Day Saints were led to believe that it was an actual translation into the English from the Egyptian hieroglyphics that were on the papyri but let me just read from the gospel topics essay title, translation and historicity of the book of Abraham. None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham's name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham.

Though there is not unanimity even among non-Mormon scholars about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments. Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies.

These fragments date to between the third century BCE. In the first century CE long after Abraham lived.

Thank you for listening you would like more information when guarding this research ministry. We encourage you to visit our website www.mrm.org you can request a free newsletter Mormonism research.

We hope you will join us again as we look at another viewpoint is


Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime