How does the Local Geographic Theory

[juliann]

No, I never said that either. I said when he talks about it he should know what he's talking about, and not guess. I don't expect him to know what color sandals nephi had. But if he came out and said it, I would think he knew that, and wasn't guessing.

Then you believe "prophet" means inerrant and infallible. There is no way to worm out of that. Sorry. LDS do not believe that...you can cluck your tongue as loud and long as you want to and we are still going to allow for changes.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Explain to me the difference in a prophet being an expert in anthropology, ancient languages, geography, all physical sciences to know "what they are talking about" with the BOM and their being able to explain "evolution".

That's the beauty of a "prophet" -- he's not constrained like the rest of us non-prophets are. According to ETB, one of the "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" is:

"Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time."

[Who Knows]

I have this song going through my head right now that my son sang for the ward primary presentation:

Follow the prophet

Follow the prophet

Follow the prophet

Don't go astraaaaay

Follow the prophet

Follow the prophet

Follow the prophet

He knows the way!

I guess they forgot to add to the song the part about not being inerrant and infallible, and only following them if it's in the quad, and if it only makes sense, and if it hasn't been proven otherwise, and if it wasn't over 25 years ago, and if...

[Rollo Tomasi]

Then you believe "prophet" means inerrant and infallible. There is no way to worm out of that. Sorry. LDS do not believe that...you can cluck your tongue as loud and long as you want to and we are still going to allow for changes.

The problem is this: we are not talking about one prophet making one misstatement in one sermon. We are talking about a nearly universal teaching by multiple prophets, seers and revelators on innumerable occasions for well over a century. Throw in divine instruction about "Cumorah," along with the current Church curriculum, and we are talking about as absolute a doctrine/teaching as one can find in the LDS Church.

[thesometimesaint]

Who knows:

I'mmm Baaack.

No changes in the Book of Mormon? I've got to think about that. Naught

Prophets may not change their minds on certain non salvaic ideas in the Book of Mormon? I've got to think real hard on that one too. Naught

Which is more important to me, To go "THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH" and preach the Gospel, or Go preach the Gospel?

[GDTeacher]

Do you just not agree with anything the prophets say?  Or do you pick and choose?

When did the D&C become the keystone?  Joseph Smith said the BOM was the keystone.  Are you implying this was his opinion again?

Again, with Isaiah, you're talking about the world being round, evolution, cure for cancer, etc.

I'm talking specifically about the BOM - THE KEYSTONE OF MORMON RELIGION.  I assume when prophets talk about, and bear their testimony about it, they know what they're talking about, and they're not merely guessing.

I have been informed here at FAIR that only canon and statements signed by the FP and Q of 12 are doctrine, everything else is just opinion, so it would seem reasonable from that vantage point to pick and choose from the statements of the prophets to fit one's perspective, as they are just opinion any way.

Now you gotta stop singing Follow the Prophet, unless you put the disclaimer in that it is just opinion.

As to the infallibility questions, I had heard an interesting comment that seems relevant. I think the perspective of a typical believing member is relevant, even if they are not the most informed or educated members of the church. The comment went like this: "The Catholic church claims that the Pope is infallible, but none of the members believe it. The LDS church claims that the Prophet is fallible, but none of the members believe it." Rather than this being a statement of truth, it is a statement reflective of perception amongst the members. This is supported by one of the many quotes which supports the notion that the prophet will never lead us astray. This comment implies to most people that the prophet will never say anything innaccurate. Those with more highly developed critical thinking skills will be able to see the fallacy in the average members' perception, but being able to see that does not negate the perception.

[Who Knows]

Who knows:

I'mmm Baaack.

No changes in the Book of Mormon? I've got to think about that. Naught

Prophets may not change their minds on certain non salvaic ideas in the Book of Mormon? I've got to think real hard on that one too. Naught

Which is more important to me, To go "THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH" and preach the Gospel, or Go preach the Gospel?

'non-salvaic' is up to interpretation. What may not be non-salvaic to you, may be to me.

[GDTeacher]

'non-salvaic' is up to interpretation.  What may not be non-salvaic to you, may be to me.

Okay, I gotta raise my hand in ignorance, I'll hold up the hand of www.dictionary.com as well. What does non-salvaic mean? Is it related to something that doesn't have anything to do with our salvation? I think we will need to update www.dictionary.com with the definition as they thought I really meant "slavic."

[charity]

Who knows: What is salvaic is what God says is salvaic.

[Who Knows]

Who knows: What is salvaic is what God says is salvaic.

Like I said, it's up to interpretation.

[rameumptom]

Do you just not agree with anything the prophets say?  Or do you pick and choose?

When did the D&C become the keystone?  Joseph Smith said the BOM was the keystone.  Are you implying this was his opinion again?

Again, with Isaiah, you're talking about the world being round, evolution, cure for cancer, etc.

I'm talking specifically about the BOM - THE KEYSTONE OF MORMON RELIGION.  I assume when prophets talk about, and bear their testimony about it, they know what they're talking about, and they're not merely guessing.

I have been informed here at FAIR that only canon and statements signed by the FP and Q of 12 are doctrine, everything else is just opinion, so it would seem reasonable from that vantage point to pick and choose from the statements of the prophets to fit one's perspective, as they are just opinion any way.

Now you gotta stop singing Follow the Prophet, unless you put the disclaimer in that it is just opinion.

As to the infallibility questions, I had heard an interesting comment that seems relevant. I think the perspective of a typical believing member is relevant, even if they are not the most informed or educated members of the church. The comment went like this: "The Catholic church claims that the Pope is infallible, but none of the members believe it. The LDS church claims that the Prophet is fallible, but none of the members believe it." Rather than this being a statement of truth, it is a statement reflective of perception amongst the members. This is supported by one of the many quotes which supports the notion that the prophet will never lead us astray. This comment implies to most people that the prophet will never say anything innaccurate. Those with more highly developed critical thinking skills will be able to see the fallacy in the average members' perception, but being able to see that does not negate the perception.

GD teacher,

You take that concept totally out of context. There is doctrine, and then there is opinion. Doctrine is well defined and fully accepted ideas from the Church.

Joseph Smith and his successors have never stated they know everything. They have only claimed to have the authority of God to perform the saving ordinances, and the inspiration to instruct us in many doctrinal matters.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young have said many things which we can now conclude were not doctrinal. For example, how many of us really believe that there are men on the moon dressed as Quakers? How many believe in the Adam-God theory (which even Pres Kimball soundly rejected)? How many believe that God and Mary had sex, or that Adam was born on a previous planet and transplanted? Some do, but these are not considered doctrinal by today's General Authorities and are not taught.

Joseph Smith received instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, as he had questions and was ready for the answers. He returned often to previous revelations and updated them with newer and more correct information. Why would he ask God where the Hill Cumorah was, or details of a Limited Geographical Theory, when no one else was pondering such things in his day? As it is, they were only discovering in the late 1830s that the Aztecs and Mayans had vast empires and huge cities. No one discussed DNA issues, no one discussed the idea of layers of civilization representing different time periods, no one understood the basics of archaeology. Joseph Smith lived in a day when blood letting was still being done as a way to remove the "humors" from ill people. Science was still in its infancy. No one knew the Indians had been here for 15,000 years at the time, or that they were primarily from Asia.

It never occurred to the early saints to do exegesis of the Book of Mormon, to determine that distances traveled through the wilderness in 40 days that covered the entire Nephite lands, meant they could not have covered all of North America.

Only with scientists entering the LDS picture: Widtsoe, Talmage, Nibley, etc., were we in a position to ask questions that had not been asked before. Yet the LGT has been around for about 80 years.

When it comes to doctrine, the apologists closely follow the teachings of the prophets. Whether the BoM covers all the hemisphere or not, has no bearing on our eternal salvation.

[Confidential Informant]

I'm not sure your argument could be any sillier, though it certainly apes Metcalfe's fundamentialisticly based conerns.

Sorry, but geography is a big issue in the BofM. Why else would U.S. members feel (as is taught in the current CES manual) that Nephi's prophecies are referring to their nation and its role in bringing the gospel to the descendants of the Lamanites (a purpose of the book, btw, according to its title page)?

I'm sorry, I was unaware of blessings being confined by geographic barriers. That's a new one to me. "Nephi, though art blessed, unless of course you move over that mountain there in which case this blessing is rescinded...."

Such blessing are not geographical indicators and your invokation of them as proof of such simply shows your desperation to cling to your losing argument.

If the book is nothing more than words relating to the "spiritual" or "doctrinal," then why do TBM's object at all when some members conclude the BofM is more fiction or allegory than ancient and historic?

The question of historicity simply goes to the question did these events actually happen? Geography goes to the questions of where did these events actually happen?

The first question is, of course, important. The second question much less so. However, identifying a plausible location does add to the argument that the event did happen.

There are all kinds of theories as to "where" it happened (Ostler places it on some isle of the sea, others move it to various locations) and that's fine. That the book is historical is doctrine. The location of where that history happened most certainly is not.

C.I.

[cdowis]

>The problem is this: we are not talking about one prophet making one misstatement in one sermon. We are talking about a nearly universal teaching by multiple prophets, seers and revelators on innumerable occasions for well over a century.

BOM geography is not a doctrine of the church. It is not a "teaching" of the church. Geography is a matter of knowledge and facts, not faith nor belief. If a prophet said, for example, that Atlanta is in the state of Idaho, that would not make it a fact. If every prophet from the time of JS made that statement, it would not change the fact that Atlanta is in the state of Georgia.

>Throw in divine instruction about "Cumorah," along with the current Church curriculum, and we are talking about as absolute a doctrine/teaching as one can find in the LDS Church.

Even if every antimormon swore on a stack of "No Man knows my History", that would not change the fact that BOM geography is not a "doctrine/teaching".

[GDTeacher]

Do you just not agree with anything the prophets say?

[GDTeacher]

>The problem is this: we are not talking about one prophet making one misstatement in one sermon. We are talking about a nearly universal teaching by multiple prophets, seers and revelators on innumerable occasions for well over a century.

BOM geography is not a doctrine of the church. It is not a "teaching" of the church. Geography is a matter of knowledge and facts, not faith nor belief. If a prophet said, for example, that Atlanta is in the state of Idaho, that would not make it a fact. If every prophet from the time of JS made that statement, it would not change the fact that Atlanta is in the state of Georgia.

>Throw in divine instruction about "Cumorah," along with the current Church curriculum, and we are talking about as absolute a doctrine/teaching as one can find in the LDS Church.

Even if every antimormon swore on a stack of "No Man knows my History", that would not change the fact that BOM geography is not a "doctrine/teaching".

If something is taught at church, does that not imply that it is a teaching? Is there a definition of teaching that is different? I'm getting hung up on definitions here as the definitions which have carried me to this point in my life are seeming to be less relevant than I had expected. To make my question simple, is there a definition of doctrine that is agreeable to everyone? Is the definition of teaching different than doctrine? If so, what is the definition of teaching?

[cdowis]

>Although Joseph's letter to Emma did not mention Zelph by name, he does speak of finding "bones and skulls" as "proof" of the BofM, when writing to Emma that he was "wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls and bones as proof of its divine authenticity." (emphasis mine). And where did this occur? Mesoamerica? 'Fraid not. It was many thousands of miles away ... in Illinois. Try again, my dear.

As I have pointed out to you previously, Illinois was, according to LGT, in the land northward. Nephites inhabited the land northward. The statement by JS is correct -- Nephites lived there.

The records of the north country are contained in the many records available to JS, but not part of the BOM translation itself.

[Kevin Graham]

== "The Catholic church claims that the Pope is infallible, but none of the members believe it. The LDS church claims that the Prophet is fallible, but none of the members believe it."

That's great!

And it rings true, if you ask me. When I disagree withs omething a Prphet says, and then justify it because they are not perfect, I can't think of any Mormon who sits idly by and allows me to get away with it without some comment or dirty look. It is generally disrespectful to say a Prophet was wrong, even if he is. It's like, yes, they are wrong, but that doesn't mean you have to talk about it. Does this really lead to apostasy? I never really thought about it, but I doubt it. i think we have an obligation to make it known when they are wrong. Yes, Kimball was wrong when he said Indians became lighter in skin tone as they became affiliated with the Church. Other authorities were wrong when they say the Indians are strictly Lamanite, and so on. I feel better knowing they're human for some reason.

You know we have issues to resolve when an Apostle can publish a book called "Mormon Doctrine," which, as we've been trying to explain for decades, really isn't Mormon doctrine.

I wonder if McConkie knew it was actually Mormon opinion?

I don't believe the leaders are infallible. And it is hard to know where to draw that line between accepting what they say because they say it and declining to accept it because it doesn't feel right in your gut.

How do you know your gut is just your own lack of spirituality that is trumped by a leading official?

And if Prophets and Apostles can sometimes "teach wrong" (as Brigham Young once said, then how do we justify their need in the first place?

Few are taking this seriously, but those who do typically try to redefine the meaning of doctrine, or try to atomize it into parts. You see, there is doctrine and then there is "official" doctrine. Scott Pierson from ZLMB is supposed to be publishing a book addressing this dilemma. But then again, that's whats he said two years ago.

[Confidential Informant]

If something is taught at church, does that not imply that it is a teaching? Is there a definition of teaching that is different?

Many of the highest officials in the Church taught that blacks were inferior and could not receive the highest glory. That claim was made in all kinds of settings.

Tell me....is that doctrine? Was it correct? Or was it ill-informed opinioni based on faulty cultural stereotypes which those leaders bought into?

C.I.

[cdowis]

>Many of the highest officials in the Church taught that blacks were inferior and could not receive the highest glory.

Could you give us a citation or two. The operative words are "inferior" and "not receive the highest kingdom" (celestial kingdom).

I am very interested in seeing your citations which specifically state this.

I think you are full of baloney, but let's see.

[Confidential Informant]

Why? Are you going argue they weren't racists?

Good luck w/ that one.

I'll get you the cites later. I don't have them at my fingertips. I know Mark E. Peterson was at the top of the list.

C.I.

[Paul Osborne]

Juliann, I'm losing faith in your ability to read and comprehend.

Hang in there. You're not the only one who detects this problem.

Paul O

[Confidential Informant]

Juliann, I'm losing faith in your ability to read and comprehend.

Hang in there. You're not the only one who detects this problem.

Paul O

Of course, who needs to read and comprehend when your whole approach is simply to declare that god swept up all the evidence but in the future the New York Cumorah will crack right open and all will be known! Let's call this, the white egg prophecy!

C.I.

[Paul Osborne]

No, I never said that either.  I said when he talks about it he should know what he's talking about, and not guess.  I don't expect him to know what color sandals nephi had.  But if he came out and said it, I would think he knew that, and wasn't guessing.

Then you believe "prophet" means inerrant and infallible. There is no way to worm out of that. Sorry. LDS do not believe that...you can cluck your tongue as loud and long as you want to and we are still going to allow for changes.

Good grief, Juliane.

It's almost Christmas. Can you be a little nicer, please?

Paul O

[Brant Gardner]

GDTeacher:

I was suprised by thesometimesaint saying that the hemispheric model mad NO SENSE. I think the fact that it did make sense is precisely why so so many people have believed it for so long. I think that it did make sense at one point in time.

I seem to have misunderstood the nature of your question. My apologies. If I understood thesometimesaint, it was that the hemispheric model makes no sense if you examine the text of the Book of Mormon carefully. Distances simply don't compute, and cannot be made to compute. Therefore, it is nonsense against the text.

Why have so many leaders and past great minds accepted the hemispheric model? They simply didn't take the time to examine the text and hence didn't come up against the evidence. If you begin with an assumpiton and never question it, it is not surprising that the assumption never changes.

That is the reason that the issue really has to hinge on the text and not what people have said about it. The only way that Jospeh Smith could have been accurate about the text was either revelation or authorship. The idea that Joseph didn't understand the geography is actually a strong indication that he wasn't the author. There are quite a number of things in the text that I believe can be demonstrated to be correct but which do not appear to have been anything Joseph understood.

Is it harsh to say that early leaders didn't pay a lot of attention to the text of the Book of Mormon? I don't know, but it is correct. See Given's By the Hand of Mormon for a discussion of how the early church understood the Book of Mormon. Serious study of the text is much more recent. Serious study of the text as history is much more recent than that. It simply wasn't anything that people (including leaders) were interested in.

[Brant Gardner]

GDTeacher:

It would seem that the church would do its best to ensure doctrinal accuracy of the officially published materials, whether they are canon, official statements or not. Perhaps my expectations are unreasonable in this regard.

The church has been a lot more careful about doctrine for a number of years. However, one of the things about which they have taken care is to reduce the scope of doctrine to a core rather than to the perceived universe of doctrine that comes from the lay populace.

One of the places where care has been taken is to separate statements about Book of Mormon geography from doctrine and place them into the "no official position" category. That is the place where the leaders let the scholars continue to work things out. Evolution is in that same category. I expect that even common perceptions have changed about that in the last 50 years. The same is happening with Book of Mormon geography.

The process is certainly slower than I would like. It would be nice if a General Authority blessed a particular geography, but frankly, the work isn't ready for that yet. There is quite a bit of good support for the Limited Geogprahy Theory, but there are still flavors of it and the work on polishing it is still in process.

While I think great strides have been made, I personally think that the scholars need more time to refine their theories and test them against accumulating evidence. Perhaps another ten to twenty years from now it will be the common assumption of lay members much the way the hemispheric assumption used to be the norm. I see the shift happening through normal channels and not revelatory ones. It just isn't a topic that fits with the saving mission of religion - any more than biblical geography is.