How does the Local Geographic Theory

[juliann]

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?

It all boils down to "false prophet". Church teachings can and have changed....and that is not even counting your untrained next door neighbor who becomes the GD teacher...or seminary teacher....

You are making this more complicated than it is. The question is simple:

Can a church/prophet be "true" if it has ever had a teaching [fill in the blank] that it abandoned or changed?

[juliann]

Good grief, Juliane.

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

Paul O

No, as you just said in your nicest Christmas voice, I can't read let alone comprehend. Self-righteousness based on double standards is such an ugly thing.

[juliann]

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...

As I said...

Primary for the conservative view is the affirmation that the Bible has as its ultimate source God himself, and that because God cannot lie or contradict himself, the Bible cannot contain any errors or inconsistencies.  115 Paul J. Achtemeier, The Inspiration of Scripture: Problems and Proposals (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1980), 50.

You are asking a liberal leaning theology (notice I did not say church) to join you in your fundamentalism. It's not gonna happen. You can complain, howl about the uncertainty of it all...but that is the way it is. So what do you want from us?

Consider: The most influential biblical scholar in American evangelical circles today is a bishop in the Church of England who regularly inveighs against U.S. "imperialism." For a comparable improbability, imagine a renaissance of the Democratic Party led by a devout Mormon from Texas.

This scholar contends that the leaders of the Protestant Reformation--Martin Luther especially--misread St. Paul on the subject of justification by faith. A self-described Reformed theologian, he proposes nothing less than a reformation of the Reformation, 500 years on--and he does so by appealing to the Reformers' own motto, sola scriptura, "going back to scripture over against all human tradition."

His name is N.T. Wright. He has published three massive volumes of a projected six devoted to "Christian Origins and the Question of God," the most recent of which argued forcefully for the historical reality of the Resurrection. In addition to his scholarly projects and his duties as Bishop of Durham, Dr. Wright produces a steady stream of popular books, tapes and other resources for the men and women in the pews. http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110007657

HOUSES OF WORSHIP

Reform Party

A British theologian takes another stab at it.

BY JOHN WILSON

Friday, December 9, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

Life is tough all over, eh?

[Calm]

He knows the way!

Never occurred to me was that this was meant in terms of geographical directions rather than spiritual ones myself.

One will never get lost in a strange city if the prophet is with you! The one man on earth that not only never will stop and asks for directions, but never needs to either.

[Paul Osborne]

Good grief, Juliane. 

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

Paul O

No, as you just said in your nicest Christmas voice, I can't read let alone comprehend. Self-righteousness based on double standards is such an ugly thing.

Oh, that just warms my heart. You're soooo sweet.

Paul O

[charity]

calmoriah wrote: "Never occurred to me was that this was meant in terms of geographical directions rather than spiritual ones myself."

That reminds me of something that impressed me greatly one time many years ago. We were on a temple trip from near Portland, Oregon to the Oakland Temple. A chartered bus full of us. We were traveling all night Friday night to get there to do as many sessions (old style) as we could on Saturday. Then we would be on the bus traveling all night again to get home for Church on Sunday.

Our bishop was sitting across the aisle from me. Earlier in the evening he had told us his father had taught the family to always know which direction your temple was from where you were. And this back when Oakland was the most recently built temple, of the 13 operating temples.

I had been so excited I had not slept all night. It was just getting dawn when we got to Oakland. The bus driver had never been to the temple before, and the word was being passed back, asking if anyone knew the directions to the temple. Someone gently shook the bishop awake and asked him if he could give the driver directions. I saw him sit straight up out of sleep, and point, "It's that way." I thought it was near miraculous. It had taken him no time at all to orient himself. He knew the way.

[Serious]

Hey Juliann,

It appears that telling it like it is, isn't what some want to hear. I personally like your style.

[cdowis]

>Church teachings can and have changed....

By "teaching", I assume that you mean doctrine.

Please give us a specific example where a doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has changed.

In order to save bandwidth, I am not talking about a *practice* of a doctrine. Polygamy is an example where the practice of polygamy has changed but not the doctrine. Multiple marriages are practiced today in the LDS temples where, for example, a widow can be sealed to a second wife. We do not practice the full Law of Consecration -- United Order, but the law of tithing.

I can think of only one instance where BY taught the false doctrine of Adam-God, but perhaps you can tell us others.

[cdowis]

>To make my question simple, is there a definition of doctrine that is agreeable to everyone?

Some tests would be -- it has an effect upon our salvation/exaltation, it is included in the definition given by Christ ("this is my doctrine") in the BOM, it is included in the Articles of Faith. Finally, it is just common sense. I would suspect that a normal LDS individual would agree that BOM geography has nothing to do with his/her salvation and is not doctrineand only the spiritually handicapped (challenged), only the enemies of the church actually think that it is doctrine.

[Who Knows]

Hey Juliann,

... I personally like your style.

'nuf said.

[GDTeacher]

>To make my question simple, is there a definition of doctrine that is agreeable to everyone?

Some tests would be -- it has an effect upon our salvation/exaltation, it is included in the definition given by Christ ("this is my doctrine") in the BOM, it is included in the Articles of Faith. Finally, it is just common sense. I would suspect that a normal LDS individual would agree that BOM geography has nothing to do with his/her salvation and is not doctrineand only the spiritually handicapped (challenged), only the enemies of the church actually think that it is doctrine.

I started a new thread on the definition of doctrine, since the topic was mucking up this thread.

[GDTeacher]

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.

Brent, thanks for your thoughtful reply.

A question has come to my mind that I would hope someone may be able to answer. Geography is important to the church. The official church scriptures include many maps of Biblical lands and early church history. Why would it not be important enough to understand Book of Mormon geography to seek clarification and publish officially accepted views on this? It seems to be important for everthing else, why is Book of Mormon geography exempted from this effort?

[juliann]

A question has come to my mind that I would hope someone may be able to answer. Geography is important to the church. The official church scriptures include many maps of Biblical lands and early church history. Why would it not be important enough to understand Book of Mormon geography to seek clarification and publish officially accepted views on this? It seems to be important for everthing else, why is Book of Mormon geography exempted from this effort?

There is not much controversy about Biblical lands and church history. I have vague memories of Cumorah being in New York and the good guys being driven into North America from somewhere in South America (none of which I think holds water anymore). Wasn't Sorenson the first to come out with an actual guess based on a map? (Other than the Einer Erickson type fireside folk). That was relatively recent. I'm sure I have seen an official enough statement put up on this board that says the church doesn't know about the geography.

I don't think the church has ever moved from this position:

"The Power of the Holy Ghost... must ever be the chief source of evidence for the truth of the Book of Mormon. All other evidence is secondary.... No arrangement of evidence, however skillfully order; no argument, however adroitly made, can ever take its place." (B.H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, 3 vols. [sLC: Deseret Book, 1909], 2:vi-vii.)

[cdowis]

>Geography is important to the church. The official church scriptures include many maps of Biblical lands and early church history.

Are those maps part of the canon? Are they part of LDS dictrine? If certain geographical features on these maps were discovered by historians to be inaccurate, would that require a revelation from the prophet to change these maps?

> Why would it not be important enough to understand Book of Mormon geography to seek clarification and publish officially accepted views on this? It seems to be important for everthing else, why is Book of Mormon geography exempted from this effort?

It is =important= in the same way that it is important to have a knowledge of NT history, but it is not doctrine. And a great deal of effort is expended on BOM geography, in case you had not noticed, on FARMS, FAIR, etc. Several books have been written on the subject, and much bandwidth has been expended on the subject.

there is no "official" view on BOM geography, even when the enemies of the church proclaim such is the case. BOM geography is not doctrine.

[Brant Gardner]

GDTeacher:

A question has come to my mind that I would hope someone may be able to answer. Geography is important to the church.

Not that I can see. There is little use of any geography in lessons - even when it might be helpful. I was in London picking up my son from a mission and there was a lesson in Gospel Doctrine that really could have used some geography to help the London Saints figure out what was going on. It wasn't there.

The official church scriptures include many maps of Biblical lands and early church history.

I don't think the presence of maps suggests any kind of interest in geography. The Bible lands have maps and Bibles have maps - so maps were included. Sometimes we get maps for early church history, but even when the maps are avaialable, there is littel done with them.

The evidence suggests to me that the church is interested in illustrations and that it uses maps as illustrations.

That is parallel to a general lack of interest in culture - even when Mediterranean culture would elucidate certain texts. LDS didactive materials tends to strongly push current understandings and contexts rather than anything ancient.

Why would it not be important enough to understand Book of Mormon geography to seek clarification and publish officially accepted views on this?

Since the thrust of teaching is to "liken" everything to the modern situation, geography is virtually useless, as is culture. Official teaching is simply interested in very different types of information.

It seems to be important for everthing else, why is Book of Mormon geography exempted from this effort?

And that is where we seem to differ. It isn't important anywhere else. Even when there is some pretty good information available on Book of Mormon geography, the official position is that it isn't known, so CES stays away from it. My wife teaches seminary and I sub once in a while. What CES thinks is important in the scriptures and what I would see as important are dramatically different. I would love to talk about the culture and the text - CES wants the students to improve their lives. I don't know that I can completely disagree with that function.

I can say, however, that it isn't the picture you have painted about church education.

[Calm]

I got the maps to put up for my GD class. No one was interested in it besides me. Asked the building librarian if he would like me to donate them so that they would be available to other classes. They weren't interested either.

I like them though. I like knowing the where and when even if it doesn't affect my salvation or spiritual understanding.

"The official church scriptures include many maps of Biblical lands and early church history."

And they include a Bible dictionary and other stuff as well. Have you read that material? Some of it is pretty trivial and a lot of stuff I've never heard mentioned in church. Just because it's in there, doesn't mean it rates high on the Church's list of important things.

[helix]

GDTeacher:

A question has come to my mind that I would hope someone may be able to answer. Geography is important to the church.

Not that I can see. There is little use of any geography in lessons - even when it might be helpful. I was in London picking up my son from a mission and there was a lesson in Gospel Doctrine that really could have used some geography to help the London Saints figure out what was going on. It wasn't there.

I am of the opinion that maps can indeed be helpful. I believe Mormon put all those geographical references in there for a reason. So we can at least get a vague idea where things were located in order to help us understand the story.

Twice in Gospel Doctrine class, I used maps to explain the lesson. The first was to summarize the Book of Mosiah. (Of course, I started with the disclaimers that it's definitely not 100% accurate, but it at lfits the details that Mormon gave us). I found that drawing a plausible map on the board, then showing where the various groups traveled, what happened, where they went, and how far they traveled to be an excellent way to explain the complexities of that book. Afterwards, I received many warm compliments using the map in that way.

Second was to explain the 2060 Nephite stripling warriors. The story is more complex that what is often taught. I wanted to explain to the class how he stripling warriors were saved several times not through battle, but through strategem. In order to understand those moments, it was best seen using a map. I would think Mormon would agree there too, since Mormon spent considerable time in that part of the Book of Mormon explaining the geography in the region, so we could better understand the story as well. Again, I received gracious compliments from people who were better able to understand the story.

[Brant Gardner]

helix:

I agree that maps can be extremely effective. To read one of my favorite map-related explanations of the Book of Mormon story, see Larry Poulsen's explanation of how the Limhite expedition to Zarahemla got lost.

Larry Poulsen's explanation

[juliann]

How a bunch of guys got lost? Brant, that is such a good straight man set up.

[The Dude]

And they include a Bible dictionary and other stuff as well. Have you read that material? Some of it is pretty trivial and a lot of stuff I've never heard mentioned in church. Just because it's in there, doesn't mean it rates high on the Church's list of important things.

Man, all the interesting trivia in that Bible dictionary saved me from going nuts in the MTC. It's there for a reason, I bear you this witness!

[Bertram]

RE:...Geography, Star of Bethleham, Biblical or Book of Mormon Journeys, or whatever...??

It is very interesting how Humans, myself included, constantly grasp at every and any available "straw" when it comes to understanding God's Great Plan!

Many Posters seemingly cannot grasp, myself included, God's means and manner of the Creation.

Many Posters, myself included, do not grasp, or understand, Book of Mormon Geography.

For my part I seek to have an understanding of scholarly back-up where it is available and made known to Man. If it is there, good and well! If not, it really does not bother me.

When I consider the vastness and depth of God's Work both on Earth and throughout the Universe I console myself that not even the most scholarly Poster on this Board, or any other Board or anywhere on this Earth, has that knowledge or information.

This was brought to my mind when reading my latest, 12/24/2005, LDSLiving E-Mail:

DAILY THOUGHT:

Whether the world accepts Jesus Christ as the literal Son of God or not does not change the absolute truth that he is. If the Lord Jehovah can place billions of stars in the cosmos, he can certainly cause one star to hang in suspended brilliance over Bethlehem.

Vaughan J Featherstone...More Purity Give ME.

I personally reached another Birthday, 20th Dec, recently, in my already long life, and I really have only scratched the surface of the Lord's vast work and I know that my Faith and Testimony will definitely "trump" any scholarly information any day! I shall however not shun any information that is made available to help me to better understand the Gospel!

I hope that you all had a lovely Holiday and I know you did not forget why our Saviour came into this World.

Have a Healthy and Prosperous New Year!

God Bless you all.

[helix]

helix:

I agree that maps can be extremely effective. To read one of my favorite map-related explanations of the Book of Mormon story, see Larry Poulsen's explanation of how the Limhite expedition to Zarahemla got lost.

Larry Poulsen's explanation

Oooh, thanks for that link!

[rameumptom]

I am glad that the GAs have straightened out, at least to a point, what is and isn't doctrine.

For decades, teachings were going all over the place on what we supposedly believed. Duane Crowther's use of patriarchal blessings to teach "doctrine" in the 60s and 70s was very problematic. It isn't that what he taught was wrong necessarily, but it depended way to much on poorly documented and non-authoritative revelations. A personal revelation is solely for the individual, and not for public interpretation nor use.

It has helped us get beyond the political disagreements that GAs tended to have over the decades. I still note how President Benson spoke little about politics as prophet, and zeroed in on key doctrinal issues: the Book of Mormon, pride, role of parents, etc. Imagine just how wasted the Church would be today, had he spent the majority of his presidency talking against communism!

I find it remarkable how President Hinckley deflects non-doctrinal questions asked him by the media. Even issues such as Lorenzo Snow's couplet (as man is, God once was...) becomes something that Pres Hinckley says we don't know enough about, and that we should concentrate on the key doctrines. With this, I agree.

While studying the LGT vs HGT is interesting for scholars, it has no impact whatsoever on whether any of us will make it to the Celestial Kingdom. Perhaps the day will come when more light and truth will be shed on the geographical subject of the BoM, but until then, it is an issue of reading the text and attempting to glean from it any clue we can find.

[why me]

Maybe the reason why there are no maps is because we just don't know. Of course one can have a map of central and south america and north america but who will take a risk and show where the bofm lands were?

It would be impossible to do so. It is all speculation and speculation should not be treated as fact. This is where the problem starts: when speculation becomes fact. The bible lands can be more precise. We have real cities and archeology to draw upon. But for the book of mormon lands...I think that it is much more complicated.

It was only recently that I am discovering that there is a problem with the hill cumorah not being the hill cumorah...if I understood this correctly...but I have to say that I am a little confused about this. And so what can a map show me? That the hill cumorah is not really the hill cumorah but rather just a hill where a man buried gold plates? Have I understood this correctly?

[cdowis]

Actually, a book was published where the author supposed used ""path analysis" to compare BOM geographic references to a map of the western hiemiphere. He found only one area which fit -- mesoamerica.

Let me look around for the book's title and author. It was published in the late 1980 or early 1990.