Ever hear of Zelph?

A Timely Discovery: The Book of Zelph

As archeological and DNA evidence appear to disprove the Book of Mormon, the Book of Zelph has come forward as a second witness to The Book of Mormon. The Book of Zelph fills in the scientific gaps of the Book of Mormon and explains the DNA controversy.

"His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains."

- Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 2:79-80; June 3, 1834

"We learn that Zelph was slain during one of these battles during the great last struggle between the Nephites and Lamanites and was buried near the Illinois River."

- Joseph Fielding Smith

"While on our way we felt anxious to know who the person was who had been killed by that arrow. It was made known to Joseph that he had been an officer who fell in battle, in the last destruction among the Lamanites, and his name was Zelph.

- Heber C. Kimball


Even though most mainstream Mormons don't know Joseph Smith revealed the existance of the white Lamanite named Zelph, it is talked about among scholars trying to figure out where "Hill Cumorah" was in New York or in Central America. Since it can't be proven that the epic battles occured anywhere in New York, where Joseph Smith claimed they were held, some current scholars within the church are trying to explain this away with the "Two Cumorahs Theory". Check out this link if you don't believe me:
BYU Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship

My thoughts are:
There sure does seem to be a lot of effort spent trying to justify the teachings of Joseph Smith, and to prop up the Book of Mormon as an accurate historical account. More often than not, the Mormons point to us, the unbelievers, and say," Prove it ISN'T true!" It's not up to us to go out of our way to show the world that what they say isn't true. They have the burden of proof here, it's up to them to demonstrate that what they teach can be backed up historically and scientifically.
If they say American Indians are decendant of Jews, DNA would not prove otherwise. If Joseph Smith said a great epic war was held in New York, there would be no need to come up with a "Two Cumorahs Theory". If there was a such thing as reformed Egyptian, then the Book of Abraham texts used by Joseph Smith wouldn't have been proven to be common funerary texts. And if Joseph Smith was a true prophet, he wouldn't have pretended to translate from the Kinderhook Plates, which most Mormons have no knowledge about.

Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In other words, "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." And I think that the Mormons have added way too many explanations for their prophet's teachings (both past and present). We should be wary of too many possible explanations being presented for the purpose of maintaining a belief, and simply accept the simplest solution: Joseph Smith developed the Book of Mormon out of many different resources, turned it into a religious movement to save his family from poverty, continued to add to the teachings and bring about "revelations" to keep the movement going, created a temple ceremony based on Masonic rituals he had learned while being inducted, and continued to act as a prophet and revelator because that is what the followers expected him to do. He had developed his fantasy to the point of being unable to retract it, and had no choice but to maintain the status quo once it had expanded into a full fledged religion. I suspect he had no intention of starting an entirely new religion, he probably just wanted to sell the book and make some money to pay off back debts. But, like wildfire, it grew until he was hailed no less than a king. He boasted of how he had done more than anyone, save Jesus himself, to bring the gospel to the masses. And his closest allies kept the religion alive after his murder. Brigham Young had done more to distort the orginal church than any other prophet, yet Mormons still say he was "called of God". And today's prophet puts as much distance as he can from Brigham's teachings, polygamy, Blood Atonement, and the couplet: "As God is, Man may become," a major tenet of the religion.

From Time Magazine:

On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain, "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."

This is not a prophet. He denies a cornerstone of the beliefs. He is not inspired.
Brigham Young was not a prophet. He inserted his own beliefs and made them scripture.
Joseph Smith was not a prophet. He created the Book of Mormon out of the desire to make money. He was not "chosen" to translate any kind of book or document. He was a fraud.