Hurricane Utah Adult Religion Class
Hurricane Utah Adult Religion Class
The Hurricane Utah Adult Religion class is sponsored by the Hurricane Utah North Stake of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The class meets weekly between September and May to discuss the scriptures of the restored Church of Jesus Christ.
For more information, please visit www.huarc.org
The videos on this channel are prepared by course instructor Mike Parker, and they represent solely his views and understanding. This is not an official channel of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Hurricane Utah North Stake, the Church Education System, or any other Church department, organization, or local unit.
Пікірлер
I see the same problems today in regards to the government being overrun by pride.
Power tends to attract a certain type of personality. That’s been true in all ages; it’s just been democratized in modern societies.
I read that short story you referenced. It kind of reminds of the poem the Touch of the Master's Hand.
They both have that inspirational quality to them, yes!
39 views and 2 likes?? The best, most concise information is never the most popular
Thank you for your very kind compliment! I’m glad the lesson was helpful. (Feel free to share it with others or on social media!) 😁
Wow, I learned so much about Isaiah! It's actually starting to make sense.
I’m glad to hear this lesson was helpful! I don’t have videos yet for the Old Testament course, but I have five weeks of notes and PowerPoint slides that may be useful to you: www.huarc.org/home/ot/week18
I really enjoyed watching Journey of Faith, thank you for sharing it with us.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thanks again!
Forgot to mention one more thing. Here's a quote from Elder Bednar “What was the symbolism of the tree in Lehi’s vision? The tree can be considered as a representation of Jesus Christ.” (“Abide in Me, and I in You; Therefore Walk with Me”, David A. Bednar, April 2023)
Br. Parker, thank you for the time you take to teach, put together these slides, and share your knowledge. The tree of life is my favorite analogy or allegory in all of scripture and 1Nephi ch 11 is my favorite chapter of all scripture. So I was disappointed to hear your misinterpretation of the tree of life. I have read everything I can about the tree of life for many years and have come across a scholarly article in the past that I think you are basing your interpretation on. I would warn you against using scholarly information as your basis for understanding. Spiritual things are understood and discerned only by the Holy Spirit. Man cannot comprehend the things of God. Be careful with information from scholars. It should be no surprise that ancient Israel and others believed and worshiped a feminine deity in the form of a tree. See Micah 5:13-14, 1Kings 16:33, Ezekiel 20:27-28, Deuteronomy 16:21. This was a common problem well documented in the bible. The scholarly document that made this connection was interesting, but that's all it was. crucifixion
Hi, Kenny. Thanks for leaving a comment. I assume you're referring to Daniel C. Peterson’s article “To Nephi and His Asherah.” I have known Dr. Peterson personally for over 25 years. I not only trust his interpretation, I agree with it. With all due respect to Elder Bednar (and I have a great deal of respect for him), I think the sequence of 1 Nephi 11 unmistakably points to the tree being a representation of Mary, the mother of the Lord. Jesus is the fruit of the tree, and the fruit is also a representation of eternal life (because he is eternal life-1 John 5:20). I understand there are different perspectives on this, and I respect the right of you and others to form different opinions and interpretations of the symbolism in Lehi’s dream. All my best to you.
@@HurricaneAdultReligionI just finished reading the article you cited. I learned a lot from it, and I am loving working through this class. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with all of us.
@@richnielsen4465 I’m thrilled to know that it’s been helpful!
I truly enjoyed the lesson! Thanks
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thanks for the videos! Great for someone who doesn’t have the time/accessibility to an adult religion class
I’m thrilled that you think they’re helpful, @RunShootSki! Thanks!
Really?! The Hurricane Adult Religion class is back? Well, I have subscribed and haven’t even listened to the lesson yet. This is what I’m most grateful for today. Thank you.
I'd appreciate it greatly if you would discuss why Joseph chose to translate from the plates into obsolete 500 yr-old King James era English, rather than into the contemporary language of his peers?
Great question, @clarestucki5151. The KJV was first published in 1611, only 200 years before Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. It was the language of scripture in Joseph Smith’s time. Hugh Nibley responded to your question in 1961. See point #6 near the bottom of page 71 of this reprint of his article: scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol20/iss1/6/
@@HurricaneAdultReligion Thanks, but as I understand the background of the plates, what joseph was translating was actually history, rather than "scripture". Would it not have been equally valuable and more understandable when phrased in contemporary language?
@clarestucki5151 Joseph Smith translated a sacred record written by ancient people that contains teachings about God and his plan of salvation. Some of that record includes a history of the people who wrote it, but the history is always secondary to the message. Quite often, the history is used to teach a spiritual message about what happens to those who obey or disobey God. The Book of Mormon is “history” in the same sense that the Old Testament contains history. As Hugh Nibley wrote (I hope you read what I linked above), “The ‘contemporary language’ of the country people of New England [in 1830] was not so far from King James English. Even the New England writers of later generations, like Webster, Melville, and Emerson, lapse into its stately periods and ‘thees and thous’ in their loftier passages. … Furthermore, the Book of Mormon is full of scripture, and for the world of Joseph Smith’s day, the King James Version was the Scripture, as we have noted; large sections of the Book of Mormon, therefore, had to be in the language of the King James Version.”
@@HurricaneAdultReligion As I understand the history of the English language, the "thees and thous" of the King James Bible are the legacy of the fact that 'Old English", same as the German language from which it originated, had dual forms of pronouns, one set for formal or impersonal address to be used in conversation with with strangers or casual acquaintances and another set for more intimate conversation with family, close friends, children, animals and God, and had no connection to "stately" or 'religious', or 'God-like'. The "stately" aspect of the K J version was simply the product of language evolution, once the original dual forms of address were abandoned. Of course, that doesn't deny the fact that the "stately" thing was any less true of Joseph's time..
Correct. Early Modern English had the so-called “T-V distinction”-one set of second-person pronouns for informal use when addressing friends, family, and children (thee, thou, thy, thine) and a separate set for formal use when addressing strangers and people of higher social or political status (you, your, yours). The T-V distinction was already becoming obsolete when the King James translators completed their work. After that, the previously informal pronouns were adopted by English speakers as formal pronouns used when addressing God in prayer. This practice persists among English-speaking Latter-day Saints, but it appears to be dying out somewhat.
In regards to where the Book of Mormon took place, why not share the following proofs which are official church documents: 1. Joseph Smith's personal hand written letters to Emma during the Zion's camp March whereby he says that they were "wandering over the plains of the nephites..picking up their skulls and bones as a proof of its divine authenticity." 2. Zelphs mound account 3. Wentworth letter 4. Letter 7- Oliver cowdery 5. 1990 letter from the Office of the First Presidency
Yes, those the are standard prooftexts used by Heartlanders. I’m aware of all of them. They’ve been discussed in numerous publications by faithful Church scholars. Numbers 1, 3, 4, and 5 do not and never have claimed to be revelations. They are the personal interpretations of the individuals who wrote them. (“A prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such.”) Joseph’s curious term “plains of the Nephites” isn’t found anywhere in the Book of Mormon; the book never describes Nephites living in, on, or around “plains.” His views on Book of Mormon were his views; they were not revealed to him by God (and he never claimed they were). Number 2 (the Zelph mound) isn’t something Joseph Smith himself wrote; the account in the (now outdated) History of the Church is based on several accounts written by other people, the details of which conflict between the accounts. Note that none of these supposed proofs comes from the text of the Book of Mormon itself, from recognized revelations received by Church leaders, or from the Church’s current explicitly stated position: “Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, members and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have expressed numerous opinions about the specific locations of the events discussed in the book. Some believe that the history depicted in the Book of Mormon-with the exception of the events in the Near East-occurred in North America, while others believe that it occurred in Central America or South America. Although Church members continue to discuss such theories today, the Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas.” www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/book-of-mormon-geography I would also refer you to this (restrained) statement published by the Church History Department in response to Jonathan Neville’s scurrilous attacks on the faithful Saints who work for that department and the publications they’ve produced on behalf of the Church: history.churchofjesuschrist.org/content/saints-and-book-of-mormon-geography It may very well be that the Book of Mormon took place in the American Midwest. So far, however, the evidences Heartlanders have produced in support of this claim has been misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and lacking in credibility or merit.
@HurricaneAdultReligion I really like your presentations and content and thanks for the reply. Seriously though, where did the BOM take place?? I have been to all of the BOM meso sites and sat through the presentations and read the books, but it just doesn't add up to what the book says. The prophecies in Nephi about the promised land, a blessed nation, the place where the new Jerusalem will be built, etc., how can one extrapolate Central America out of that? Where do you think it took place? Honestly....the "most correct book" has to have real sites...Zarahemla has to have been a real city. If Cumorah was in NY and that was where they found the plates and prophets and archeological evidence prove that this was the same as the BOM then aren't we doing a disservice to the BOM by not acknowledging it as such? How does one explain all of those statements away? Thanks
The Church’s position is that it took place somewhere in the Americas. Anything beyond that is opinion. Any evidence presented for a proposed location for the Book of Mormon must be responsible, rational, and reliable. Virtually all of the evidences presented by the Heartland movement fail that test. They claim, for example, that D&C 125:3 reveals the location of the ancient city of Zarahemla, when the plain meaning of the verse is simply that the Saints should build a city and give it that name. Likewise, many of the supposed artifacts they hold forth as ancient (like the Michigan Relics and the Newark Holy Stones) are modern frauds. And their claim that the Hopewell were the Nephites is simply impossible-the Hopewell had no large population centers, no written language, no warfare on any scale; they simply don’t resemble the Nephites in any way. Heartland Book of Mormon geographic theories are also completely unworkable. Mesoamerica, on the other hand, has almost all of the geographical, anthropological, and archaeological features described in the Book of Mormon. I’m not beyond being convinced that the Book of Mormon took place somewhere else, but the evidence for the other candidates is embarrassingly bad. As far as the Book of Mormon passages regarding the “land of promise,” these have been misread by many Latter-day Saints to apply exclusively to the United States, when Church leaders from Joseph Smith to Ezra Taft Benson have taught that all of North and South America is the land of promise or Zion. You can read these quotes to my notes for these lessons on my site (be sure to pay attention to the footnotes): • www.huarc.org/home/bm/week02 | pp. 4-12, 20-23 • www.huarc.org/home/bm/week05 | pp. 9-11 • www.huarc.org/home/bm/week06 | pp. 2-5
@@HurricaneAdultReligion so you think it was mesoamerica?
@@Bigblue16 I’m neither and anthropologist nor an archaeologist, so I can’t come to my own conclusions on the location of Book of Mormon events; all I can do is rely on what others have claimed. At this time, I believe Mesoamerica has the strongest case for being the Book of Mormon lands, but I’m open to good evidence that it took place somewhere else.
The hemispheric model and/or Central American model for the BOM and specifically the comments in the Times and Seasons regarding the cities in mesoamerica has been proven to have NOT been written or approved by JS. It was inserted there by Benjamin Winchester, a zealous missionary who was anxious to provide facts for the Book of Mormon. There are plenty of official church documents that say exactly where the BOM took place. i.e., the heartland model
I’m very familiar with Jonathan Neville’s hypothesis about Benjamin Winchester. I’m being as charitable as I can be when I say that his claims are completely bogus. They are based entirely on a fictional conspiracy theory he invented to shore up the Heartland setting of the Book of Mormon. He has not dealt honestly with Book of Mormon scholars, and he has repeatedly accused Church leaders and employees of undermining faith in the Book of Mormon. For example, see this blog post (and others on that site): www.nevillenevilleland.com/2019/04/jonathan-nevilles-history-of-deception.html I would recommend that you disregard his claims.
@HurricaneAdultReligion Hi, I just came across this background of how we got the Wentworth letter and the specific backstory behind it, specifically the base material coming from Orson Pratt's 1840 phamphlet whereby Orson Pratt thought the BOM took place in Mesoamerica and JS corrected him stating that it was the "aborigines of this country" not mesoamerica. It is interesting that the side by side comparison between JS Wentworth letter and the 1840 Orson Phamplet clearly show the change. The JS papers references the Orson Pratt letter but don't include it. Also, the specific language of "aborigines of this country" was omitted in the JS papers. kzread.info/dash/bejne/i6ylyLGwgqiyipc.htmlsi=pJSrzWf-iDpGc91d What are your thoughts? It seems pretty clear that JS was correcting Orson Pratt. Additionally he wrote the editor of the paper who had excluded parts of the letter in the 1st printing, specifically that part regarding that the BOM was a history of the Indians of this country. The editor then reprinted the correction.
My sincere apologies. For some reason, I didn’t see your last comment (4 months ago!), so only now am I getting back to you. The video you linked is Jonathan Neville and Rod Meldrum in conversation. These two men are neither scholarly nor honest in their claims. I would strongly recommend that you disregard what they say. Orson Pratt, in his 1840 pamphlet "An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions," didn’t claim the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica; he claimed it took place across North and South America-a hemispheric view of the Book of Mormon. You can read his pamphlet for yourself on the Joseph Smith Papers website; start with page 16: www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-orson-pratt-an-interesting-account-of-several-remarkable-visions-1840/16 Orson Pratt claimed (p. 16) that the Jaredites landed in North America, while Lehi₁ landed in South America and Nephi₁ and his followers "emigrated towards the northern parts of South America." He also claimed (p. 18) that the Mulekites "landed in North America, and emigrated from thence, to the northern parts of South America," and that Hagoth’s ships were launched from "the Isthmus of Darien" (modern Panama). He further claimed (p. 20) that Bountiful was "in the northern parts of South America," and (p. 21) that by Mormon₂’s time, "the Lamanites, at that time, dwelt in South America, and the Nephites in North America." See also the JSP’s historical introduction to the Wentworth letter: www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/church-history-1-march-1842/1?highlight=wentworth%20letter#historical-intro While the Wentworth Letter "echoes wording" of Orson Pratt’s "Remarkable Visions" pamphlet, there is no indication that Joseph Smith was "correcting" Orson Pratt; this is a fantasy invented by Neville and Meldrum to shore up their exceptionally weak claims that Joseph Smith knew the geography of the Book of Mormon by revelation. The Wentworth letter doesn’t go into any detail regarding where in the Americas the Book of Mormon took place; it simply refers to it as "the history of ancient America." And the Joseph Smith Papers hasn’t "omitted" anything; this is just another conspiracy theory from Neville, who has repeatedly asserted that Church historians, Church employees, and even general authorities are conspiring to suppress information favorable to the "Heartland" Book of Mormon theory; his claims are laughably false. John Wentworth never published Joseph Smith’s letter in his newspaper, Chicago Democrat; it’s not even known if he ever received Joseph’s letter. It was published in the Church-owned Times and Seasons at Nauvoo.
@HurricaneAdultReligion Thanks for the response, but with respect, you are part of the problem with why members are leaving the church. Each week I meet with members who have completely lost their testimony regarding the restoration, the Prophet JS, and the BOM. They have stumbled across the CES letter, go to the Mormkn Stories podcast, and see Richard Bushman pushing his Joseph Smith dabbled in witchcraft narrative and how the book is sold at Deseret Book and they're done! The authenticity of the BOM and the evidences that exist as a historically, geographically, archeologically, doctrinally, and spiritually true book brings some of these people back. To sit down with a 17 yr old high school student who is having a faith crisis and to tell them that we don't know where the "most correct book" on earth was written, or that we have no idea if Zarahemla, or Manti, or any of the other sites listed in the BOM are real does them no favors. Not knowing where the BOM took place then morphs into believing the nonsense about a magic rock in a hat was used to translate it vs the urim and thumin. To me, the evidence is clear: 1. Angel Moroni told JS that it was a record of the inhabitants of "THIS CONTINENT." 2. JS got the plates out of the Hill Cumorah- not Guatemala 3. Zions camp March JS writes to Emma and has the Vision in Illinois- not Meso America 4. Oliver Cowdery in Letter vii said it was NY I am going to believe Moroni and, Joseph Smith before some statement by Orson Pratt. JS has a long history of correcting his beliefs anyway.
I’m sorry, but I simply do not believe you. People are not leaving the Church over Book of Mormon geography. People are leaving the Church for other false things John Dehlin teaches; they leave over cultural and moral issues; they leave because they don’t want to follow the commandments; and they mostly leave because they’re apathetic; but I absolutely dispute the ridiculous Heartlander claim that there’s some kind of mass exodus taking place because of claims that the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica. That assertion is ludicrous on its face. Your mischaracterization of what Richard Bushman has said is defamatory, and you should be ashamed of yourself. The overwhelming testimony of the direct eyewitnesses to the Book of Mormon translation process is that Joseph Smith mostly used a seer stone that he placed into his hat. To deny this, you have to ignore, exclude, and overlook volumes of written statements by multiple witnesses (formal and informal) and focus only on a few limited statements. This is the Heartlander M.O. 1. Yes, Moroni₂ was correct: The Book of Mormon is a record of the inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, North and South America, which is what "this continent" referred to when people used that term in the early 1800s. It’s also what Joseph Smith taught in Nauvoo, and it’s been the testimony of later apostles (including Mark E. Petersen and Ezra Taft Benson) that the "this land" promises of the Book of Mormon apply to all of North and South America. 2. Joseph Smith got the plates out of the hill in New York that was later called Cumorah by the Latter-day Saints. The Book of Mormon does not say that the plates of Mormon were buried in the hill Cumorah; in fact, it says exactly the opposite (Mormon 6:6). The hill in New York was either misnamed, or it may have been called that by Moroni₂ in honor of the hill where the Nephites were destroyed. The New York hill Cumorah matches none of the features the Mormon 6 ascribes to it; it simply doesn’t match. 3. There’s no indication that Joseph Smith’s letter to Emma was based on revelation. It was Joseph’s belief that they were walking over "the plains of the Nephites" (a phrase that appears nowhere in the Book of Mormon). To elevate his letter to the status of revelation is unwarranted and illegitimate. 4. There’s no indication that Oliver Cowdery’s Letter VII was based on revelation. It was Oliver’s belief that the final battles of the Book of Mormon took place in New York. To elevate his letter to the status of revelation is unwarranted and illegitimate. Honestly, it startles me how many people fall hook, line, and sinker for the bad arguments, false claims, misrepresentations, pseudoscience, hypernationalism, and occasional racism of the Heartland movement. I truly hope you can disentangle yourself from its delusion.
I’m so grateful I found this video. You’ve done an incredible job. This was so informative and helpful. Thank you so much for your effort in putting this class together. ❤
Cool, thank you.
Well done. Straightforward, factual vs. opinionated, and it didn’t take two hours to listen to.
If you are open to “any demonstratable evidence”, it sounds like you are more agnostic rather than a “hard atheist”.
I am unable to find the show notes and videos. Please direct me.
The website is www.huarc.org/
Correct me if I am wrong, but when I try to honestly ask online for the definition of what makes something a "Sacred Scripture" it always refers to BIBLICAL writings.... so thinking I would take out the word "sacred" and only use the word "scripture" and it also refers to the BIBLE.... NOT the Book of Mormon. So, my very serious question is the same, what makes the Book of Mormon sacred or scripture? And can the things I write, or others also be consider sacred scriptures? I am NOT trying to attack anything you may belief... I am only seeking an understanding of those/that term. Thank you for a clarification.
I suppose it depends on how you define the terms "sacred" and "scripture." There are many books that are considered to be either or both by those who follow them. I assume that by "the Bible" you mean the Christian Bible (Old and New Testaments); Jewish believers would only consider part of that to be sacred scripture, while Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and others would reject both parts as scriptural; they each have their own sacred texts. Latter-day Saints have four volumes of sacred scripture (the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the The Pearl of Great Price). We consider the Book of Mormon to be scripture because we believe it contains the word of God written by an ancient people that has application for people today. We consider it to be sacred because it was preserved by the hand of God, delivered by an angel of God to Joseph Smith, and translated by Joseph Smith through the power of God. Does that answer your question?
Hi from down under (Australia) Enjoyed your lesson on the introduction of the B of M. Shall continue watching and listening. Thank for your time and talent.
This was great, loved every minute of it, and learned tons! Thank you!
Happy to have found this. I am always happy to find reviews and analyses of the BOM by different groups throughout the world that are not necessarily created by BOM scholars. While I certainly enjoy the research of Grant Hardy, Joseph Spencer, and other great BOM scholars, I really like the analyses provided by members within wards/stakes. I will be following your show throughout the year and would invite you to follow mine as I will be holding round-table discussions with colleagues throughout the world to share insights on each of the "Come Follow Me" readings. I have also been reading the Annotated version of the BOM and it is spectacular!
Great introduction!
I believe that is true
Im not Latter Day Saint nor a Christian nor of any known faith. I consider myself a hard Atheist. But I am open to any demonstrable evidence of the supernatural. Still havent cone across anything that comes close to divinity
Thanks for leaving a comment, @oflunrazeuqram! I’m grateful that you watched some of this video and left a thoughtful comment. I invite you to read the Book of Mormon and follow along with the videos in this course. Even if you don’t become convinced that the Book of Mormon is divine, you’ll know more about it and the beliefs of those of us who accept it as scripture. You can read it online at www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm
Thank you for sharing this for those of us who can't make it to Hurricane on a regular basis!
You’re welcome! I’m glad it’s helpful.