How does the Local Geographic Theory

[charity]

The Lord says His work and His glory are the exaltation and eternal life of man. Pardon me, but since I don't see locating Hill Cumorah or Zarahemla on that list it doesn't appear to me to warrant any official mention from the Prophet or inclusion in the canon.

We can talk about it just for fun. But it is certainly nothing to get your knickers in a knot over if someone else doesn't want to play in that park.

[Mortimer]

Thanx Rollo for your great posts, your logic seems the same as mine.  I have read all sides of this issue, I wish I could express myself as well as you consistantly do.  I have to say I have been taught all of my 53 years that Cumorah was in New York and that the last battle took place there, it's a little hard to erase from my mind just for convenience.

And you shouldn't. I approach it from a different viewpoint.

I am not a doubter like RT. But, the evolution of the LGT shows just mindless drivel, and it is a defensive way to explain away the seeming archeological inconsistencies between the Book of Mormon and the physical record.

Think about it; why would we even have an LGT, or why would it even be necessary, if there weren't perceived inconsistencies? Try as the LGT theorists might, there is certainly no more physical proof for the LGT than the hemispherical model, so why is one better than the other?

The rationale goes: Well, since there is NO physical proof for the hemispherical model, it is easier to say there is NO physical proof for the LGT model because, well, we don't know where the LGT model is located. Hooey. The lack of evidence is not evidence of anything.

But, try as one might, the physical inconsistencies between the record and the Book of Mormon are the same, whether it be the LGT or the hemispheric model. One can neither find horses in the western hemisphere, or in any little piece within in it.

So, the answer between those physical inconsistencies lies elsewhere. Why, for instance, does Genesis speak of iron long before the iron age (and certainly early enough for the Jaredites)? Why does the OT refer to "steel" long before its invention? Why does the Book of Mormon apparently draw a distinction between the discovery of wild and domestic animals on the continent when the Nephites arrived? (1 Nephi 18:25.)

Let me suggest that, like the Bible, the Book of Mormon is the story of a real people but highly allegorical and "written for our day." Where else in the Mormon experience do you see a story of real people in a highly allegorical fashion?

[GDTeacher]

Jaybear:

Unfortunately for the critics. The Church readily admits that EVERYTHING that is said by a Prophet is not "Inspired".

But when the average member looks to the prophet as being inspired and speaking as the mouthpiece of God, what is that average person to do? If he is constantly questioning, judging, and perhaps praying about everything the prophet says, what if that member feels inspired to discount something that the prophet said as opinion, but someone else perhaps a leader feels that the same thing was spoken as a prophet? At a practical level, how is that to work?

[GDTeacher]

It doesn't matter what they *thought*. What matters is what was revelation.

[Daniel Peterson]

I am not a doubter like RT.

[charity]

The phrased used in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon about the ancestry of the American Indians is "principal ancestors."

What does that mean? At dictionary.com the #1 definition of principal is: First, highest, or foremost in importance, rank, worth, or degree;

This could mean that the most important ancestor of the American Indian would be a Lamanite ancestor. This does not say the predominance of one genetic strain over another.

I have tried to explain on other posts, largely ignored, that we have thousands, even up to millions of ancestors. The DNA from any one particular ancestor could have disappeared, but not have any kind of retroactive erasure effect on that ancestor in the person's pedigree.

The following is the blessing given to Abraham: Gen. 22: 17-18 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

What does it take to be the seed of Abraham this many generations down from him? What does it take to be the seed of the Lamanites this many generations down. And yet, having one Lamanite ancestor many be enough to qualify one for the blessings promised.

[GDTeacher]

The phrased used in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon about the ancestry of the American Indians is "principal ancestors."

What does that mean?  At dictionary.com the #1 definition of principal is:  First, highest, or foremost in importance, rank, worth, or degree;

This could mean that the most important ancestor of the American Indian would be a Lamanite ancestor. This does not say the predominance of one genetic strain over another. 

I have tried to explain on other posts, largely ignored, that we have thousands, even up to millions of ancestors.  The DNA from any one particular ancestor could have disappeared, but not have any kind of retroactive erasure effect on that ancestor in the person's pedigree.

The following is the blessing given to Abraham: Gen. 22: 17-18 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

What does it take to be the seed of Abraham this many generations down from him?  What does it take to be the seed of the Lamanites this many generations down.  And yet, having one Lamanite ancestor many be enough to qualify one for the blessings promised.

Thank you for clarification on the word principal. I do think that most people would interpret the use of the word, principal, in the introduction to by synonomous with primary genetic contributor. For most LDS folks, this would be particularly true since we have been taught that word Lamanite was synonomous with Native American, interpreted to mean the genetic sense. I am unaware of ever having heard is a church context, that the Lamanites were the most important in the sense that you attribute to Abraham.

Your perspective is refreshing and interesting, but I suspect that there are few that would say it squares with what they have learned at church. One of my personal struggles is reconciling what is taught at church vs. what is "taught" by apologists. It almost seems as if there are two separate religions, or perhaps more.

Thank you for your insights.

[thesometimesaint]

GDTeacher:

You are relegating prayer to a "Perhaps"? I believe a more accurate formulation would be to use every single resource we can find or develop. Study, study,study. Work it out in our own mind. Arrive at what you feel is the best decision/solution. And then prayfully ask God with real intent, if it is not true. It has always worked for me. Having done that I have yet to disagree with the established doctrines of the Church.

[SurfDude621]

Your perspective is refreshing and interesting, but I suspect that there are few that would say it squares with what they have learned at church. One of my personal struggles is reconciling what is taught at church vs. what is "taught" by apologists. It almost seems as if there are two separate religions, or perhaps more.

GDTeacher,

To assume that everything you've been taught in Church is Gospel, is to make a serious error in judgement!

Just recently in EQ, I had an instructor (2nd Counsellor in EQ) tell us that it was mandatory that the message in the Ensign be taught at every home teaching visit...even if a non-member head of the house requested that no religious talk take place during visits. To show how quickly false doctrine can spread and magnify, some other brother in the class rose his hand and said, "Yes, we should fit the lesson in no matter what! There are all sorts of ways to 'sneak' the lesson in. The Brethren are inspired, and therefore the message HAS to be taught every month." I let the original comment by the EQ counsellor go, figuring everyone in the class would understand that he was new, nervous, and probably didn't mean what he actually said. When the second brother though gave this little 'sneak the lesson in' comment (and sneak was the actual word he used), I could hold my tounge no longer. I stood up and told them that this was FALSE doctrine! The lessons in the Ensign are given as guides to the Home Teachers. The problem with Priesthood brethren is that if they didn't have something given to them, most of the time they would either visit their families and talk about nothing important, or would spend time talking about unimportant spiritual things (i.e., Did Adam have a belly button?). The Brethren provided the First Presidency message in the Ensign, so that Priesthood could never again say, "I didn't do my Home Teaching because I didn't know what to teach my families." The Head-of -the-Household is the ultimate arbiter of that is taught, and what the scope of the Home Teacher's visit will be. If the HOH, wants a lesson for his teen-age son about the law of Chastity, and the message in this month's Ensign is on Tithing...then there is no doubt that the message for the month (for that family) is going to be on Chastity!!! If the HOH has requested that no religious topics be brought up during the HT visit, then NO RELIGIOUS topics are brought up during the HT visit (unless HOH brings them up first). There is NO sneaking in religious messages against the wishes of the HOH!

I was/am new to the ward. I was nervous as heck being the only one to speak out against this, but the funny thing was that when I looked over at the EQ President...he was smiling like there was no tomorrow...I knew then, that I had done right in speaking out.

Now before this gets way too long...."Too late!", says Pahoran...just because something is taught in Church doesn't make it so. It could be that no one in that class had the knowledge of the teachings to argue against it. It could be one who had the knowledge, was too scared to stand up and refute it. Or, in the case of LGT, perhaps some more study is called for on the part of those who haven't looked into it, before pronouncing it as FALSE DOCTRINE. I don't think it matters one whit in anyone's eternal salvation, but the more I learn about it, the more I agree with it's premise.

Also, does anyone have that scripture Lonestar Runner used to show how all the remnants in the New World after the destruction of the Nephites were numbered as Lamanites? I think that would answer the question as found on the Title Page.

As always, your mileage may vary depending on you.

Roy

[charity]

Teacher, I joined the Church as an adult, (well, 19 years old) and spent my junior and senior college years at BYU. I have taken Education Week classes, attended Know Your Religion lectures. I have taught the Gospel Doctrine course in different wards over the course of my 45 years of membership.

I have never taught that the American Indians were descended only from Lamanites. But then I had taken genetics courses before I joined the Church and maybe that made a difference. However, I also don't recall ever hearing a gospel doctrine teacher teach that, either.

[Daniel Peterson]

One of my personal struggles is reconciling what is taught at church vs. what is "taught" by apologists.  It almost seems as if there are two separate religions, or perhaps more.

This sounds very, very suspiciously -- almost eerily -- reminiscent of "Dr. Shades's" bogus dichotomy between "chapel Mormons" and "internet Mormons," whom he likewise claims to regard as two separate religions, two distinct churches.

Permit me to offer, oh, twenty-five or so fundamental beliefs universally held by Mormon "apologists." (As someone typically assigned to the breed, I think I know them fairly well.) If the church to which you belong teaches differently on these matters, then I will readily concede that you and I believe in different religions.

1) God exists.

2) God is embodied.

3) The Godhead has three distinct members.

4) These include the Father, a divine Son, and the Holy Ghost.

5) The Son came to earth, lived sinlessly in Palestine, atoned for our sins, rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven.

6) Salvation is possible only through his vicarious redeeming sacrifice.

7) After his ascension in the Old World, the Son visited the New World.

The Jaredites and Lehites lived in the New World, though their historical origin was in the Old World.

9) Their prophets kept records that, at the end of their history, were sealed up to come forth at a later day.

10) They were brought forth in the 1820s, when the resurrected Moroni, a Nephite now an angel, directed a young man named Joseph Smith to their hiding place.

11) Joseph Smith had earlier been visited by the Father and the Son.

12) Joseph Smith translated the ancient records by the gift and power of God, and his translation was published in 1830 as the Book of Mormon.

13) Three official Witnesses (besides others) were shown the plates of the Book of Mormon and other ancient artifacts by an angel, and heard the voice of God affirming the translation.

14) Eight official witnesses also saw the plates of the Book of Mormon, and "hefted" them.

15) The Aaronic Priesthood was restored to earth when the resurrected John the Baptist ordained Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to it.

16) The Melchizedek Priesthood was restored to earth when the ancient apostles Peter, James, and John conferred it upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

17) Other keys and authorities were conferred upon Joseph and Oliver later, in the Kirtland Temple, by other divine messengers.

18) Joseph Smith eventually died a martyr, but the keys of the priesthood continued on the earth and the presidency of the Church continued through a line commencing with Brigham Young and extending to the current president, Gordon B. Hinckley.

19) The president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds all of the keys for the ordinances that are essential to salvation; he, his counselors, and the Council of the Twelve are prophets, seers, and revelators.

20) Some of the most important of those ordinances are performed in sacred temples, where baptisms for the dead, eternal sealings, and other important things occur.

21) Human beings are "genetically" connected to God, and it is our potential to become like him.

22) Along the way, prayer, righteous living, worship, and the study of the scriptures are important helps.

23) The family is the basic unit not only of earthly society but of the eternities.

24) While other religious traditions contain much truth and very much goodness, the fullness of the truths needed for salvation and of the authority of the priesthood is held only within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

25) The authoritative "standard works" of the Church are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

I could go on, of course, but those seem, to me, to give at least some of the flavor of the religious beliefs of the Mormon "apologists" that I've come to know. If you adhere to a distinct faith from the "apologists," I hope you'll indicate specifically which of the above twenty-five "apologist" beliefs you reject.

[GDTeacher]

GDTeacher:

You are relegating prayer to a "Perhaps"? I believe a more accurate formulation would be to use every single resource we can find or develop. Study, study,study. Work it out in our own mind. Arrive at what you feel is the best decision/solution. And then prayfully ask God with real intent, if it is not true. It has always worked for me. Having done that I have yet to disagree with the established doctrines of the Church.

Thank you. I understand your perspective. My question here really revolves around the individual member and when his or her inspiration seems to conflict with his or her leaders' perspective. When I used the word perhaps, it was because some/many members do not pray about everything that they hear over the pulpit at church. Let me digress briefly from the intent of the overall thread for ease of example. Let's say the bishop says that a deacon needs to wear a white shirt to pass the sacrament because it is the "uniform of the priesthood." Let's say that this boy wonders about the bishop's statement and is conflicted. In going to study out this particular issue, he turns to the scripture and reads, among other things 1 Samuel 16:7:

But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

Furthermore, the boy being studious, comes to understand that the leaders are but men, are fallible, and make mistakes. He also understands that he should be obedient and sustain his church leaders. Being conflicted, he thinks through all of the pieces of the puzzle that he is able to pull together and decides that the Lord does not really care what color of shirt he wears to pass the sacrament and that he should not worry about the color of his shirt so long as his shirt is clean and properly pressed. This boy takes the result of his careful study and decision to God in prayer and receives a clear answer to his prayer. Feeling confident with his answer, he wears a nicely pressed blue dress shirt to church. As he sits to pass the sacrament, the bishop comes and tells him that he is not allowed to pass the sacrament, because he is not wearing the uniform of the priesthood. The boy clumsily tries to explain to the bishop about his study and prayer and the bishop dismisses him and calls him to his office during Sunday School to tell him about obedience, respecting his elders, and the importance of appearance in the administration of the sacrament. [this little story is real, from a deacon in a previous ward, eight years ago]

This little story illustrates the issue which I am trying to describe. At times, under the best intentions study and prayer lead one to be at odds with a person's leaders. What is a person to do in such a circumstance?

[GDTeacher]

GDTeacher,

To assume that everything you've been taught in Church is Gospel, is to make a serious error in judgement!

To be clear, I definitely don't think everything that is taught at church is Gospel. But the point is that many do. This is particularly true of our children and many of our youth. There are many adults which fundamentally believe that their leaders, being the inspired leaders that they are, teach only Gospel. I can stand back and say that their perspective is unfortunately naive, but that is the reality of their world. How would this situation be appropriately addressed?

I too could site examples of correcting the teachings that occur in classes. I could also cite examples where well-meaning individuals took a stance of "correcting" correct statements from both factual and doctrinal perspectives.

Although I may err in many things, assuming that everything taught at church is Gospel is not one of them. Yet I see many people, particularly our younger people, who effectively believe that everything taught at church is Gospel, particularly if the teacher is perceived to be a leader.

[GDTeacher]

One of my personal struggles is reconciling what is taught at church vs. what is "taught" by apologists.

[Daniel Peterson]

1.  The Native Americans are genetic decendants of primarily the Lamanites.  Most life-long members have heard this from their childhood and have come to believe this to be a truth.  Most, but not all more informed LDS folks that I know are leaning towards the LGT.  All of the people of which I am aware that are typically cited as apologists support the LGT.  Most members today would be surprised and perhaps alarmed if the LGT were taught at church.

First of all, just to be clear, I'm aware of no "apologist" -- I have ambivalent feelings about that term; in one sense, it's unobjectionable and precisely accurate, but, in another, when it's used as a dismissal and to imply that the person in question isn't a legitimate scholar, I strongly resist it -- who denies the proposition that all or at least most Amerindians are descended from Book of Mormon Lamanites. Many of us do, however, have problems with the phrase principal ancestors that was (over some objections from members of the Scripture Committee, I'm told) inserted into the introduction to the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon.

I'm not sure how surprised, let alone alarmed, most members of the Church would be to hear limited geographical thinking. I speak widely throughout the Church and, as it happens, currently teach the Gospel Doctrine class in my home ward, and I make no secret whatever of my views on Book of Mormon geography. I literally cannot recall ever having encountered shock or surprise or emotional turmoil on that account.

2.  Hill Cumorah is in New York.  I suspect if you went to a typical LDS congregation and asked where Hill Cumorah is located, most members would say, "New York."  I suspect that depending upon the ward, you may find a few that say that there is some disagreement, that maybe it is in Central America, or perhaps there are two.  By and large people will say that it is New York.  More well-informed people, or perhaps apologists will say otherwise.  Most members today would be confused at the notion that Cumorah may not have been in New York, or that perhaps there are two Cumorah's.

You're probably right, although, once again, I've frequently given as my opinion the view that the final battles occurred in the vicinity of Veracruz, and nobody seems upset or surprised. There is only one occasion that I can recall where I encountered real resistance, and the story is actually somewhat interesting: About twenty years ago, I wrote a little piece on the Book of Mormon and mentioned the possibility of a Mexican "Cumorah" in a footnote. An anonymous reviewer -- I think I know who it was: a long-since-retired professor of religious education here at BYU -- vigorously objected to that footnote, suggesting that I was a heretic. (The article was published anyway, over his objection, because the editor, also a professor of religious education, agreed with me.) Anyway, that very weekend, an extremely conservative member of the Seventy (since deceased) attended my Gospel Doctrine class. He was a member of the area presidency in Mexico City, and was up for conference. Afterwards, during a conversation, he mentioned that he had been bouncing around in a jeep on the Hill Cumorah just ten days earlier. My ears immediately pricked up. "Well of course it's in Mexico!" he said.

Incidentally, just to be clear, I believe, and every "apologist" I know believes, that Moroni buried the plates in that New York hill.

3.  Most members have the impression that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon from the gold plates in the sense that we use the word, translate, today.  Most better informed people understand that the whole process was very different than that.  Most members would be alarmed to come to understand more clearly the processes most commonly reported.

Surely it can't be true that most members think Joseph Smith translated in the conventional way. I've translated virtually every day of my life for the past, oh, thirty-five years. When I do it, it typically involves dictionaries, repeated reformulations, etc. I've never translated anything "by the gift and power of God" while gazing into a special stone.

4.  Most members would say that the prophet cannot lead us astray by teaching incorrect doctrine.  Most more well-informed individuals can cite many examples where prophets have taught things that are now considered to be false doctrine.  Depending on the person involved, apologists will sometimes scoff at the naivety of the typical members.  Most members today would be alarmed at many of Brigham Young's teachings if they were taught today at church.

I myself don't believe that the prophet can lead the Church astray. And among the things that prophets have said, which I do not believe have led the Church astray, are denials of their own infallibility. I don't have time to gather them today (or tomorrow), but there are a number of such statements. And if one believes that, when the president of the Church speaks, the thinking has been done, then the debate is over. And if one does not believe that, there is no debate.

5.  Most members today would acknowledge that polygamy was part of the past of the church, but certainly never polyandry.  They would say that anyone practicing polyandry was out of line with church teachings and should have been excommunicated.  Better informed people know otherwise and apologists have created ideas or theories that provide potential reasons why Joseph's polyandry was reasonable or at least excusable.

Well, what can I say? This is a matter not of "apologist" attitudes but, simply, of historical fact.

Most members of the Church aren't serious students of Latter-day Saint history or doctrine. This is scarcely surprising: Most people generally aren't serious students of history or abstract ideas.

I could go on, but you know better than I the discrepancies between what the typical member believes and what better informed individuals believe.  I suspect that you could also provide many examples of the discrepancies between what many or most General Authorities believe and what most well informed scholars believe.  Many of the papers that are put forth by FARMS and some people that write for FAIR go to describe, explain, reconcile, or excuse the differences between typical beliefs within the LDS community and those that are more in line with current science and the clear and forthright history that is not taught in typical church settings.

I could give you a number of examples where I know from personal experience that "apologists" and at least certain very high ranking leaders of the Church are, even on these small issues, very much on the same page.

I've got to run, but I think it's always going to be the case that the very well informed are a relatively small minority -- in every area of knowledge, not just in LDS history and doctrine.

Is it important that we in the Church all agree? On the big things, yes. On the small things -- and I consider the location of the final Book of Mormon battles a rather small thing (certainly as compared with the answer to the question of whether there were such battles).

[SurfDude621]

GDTeacher:

You are relegating prayer to a "Perhaps"? I believe a more accurate formulation would be to use every single resource we can find or develop. Study, study,study. Work it out in our own mind. Arrive at what you feel is the best decision/solution. And then prayfully ask God with real intent, if it is not true. It has always worked for me. Having done that I have yet to disagree with the established doctrines of the Church.

Thank you. I understand your perspective. My question here really revolves around the individual member and when his or her inspiration seems to conflict with his or her leaders' perspective. When I used the word perhaps, it was because some/many members do not pray about everything that they hear over the pulpit at church. Let me digress briefly from the intent of the overall thread for ease of example. Let's say the bishop says that a deacon needs to wear a white shirt to pass the sacrament because it is the "uniform of the priesthood." Let's say that this boy wonders about the bishop's statement and is conflicted. In going to study out this particular issue, he turns to the scripture and reads, among other things 1 Samuel 16:7:

But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

Furthermore, the boy being studious, comes to understand that the leaders are but men, are fallible, and make mistakes. He also understands that he should be obedient and sustain his church leaders. Being conflicted, he thinks through all of the pieces of the puzzle that he is able to pull together and decides that the Lord does not really care what color of shirt he wears to pass the sacrament and that he should not worry about the color of his shirt so long as his shirt is clean and properly pressed. This boy takes the result of his careful study and decision to God in prayer and receives a clear answer to his prayer. Feeling confident with his answer, he wears a nicely pressed blue dress shirt to church. As he sits to pass the sacrament, the bishop comes and tells him that he is not allowed to pass the sacrament, because he is not wearing the uniform of the priesthood. The boy clumsily tries to explain to the bishop about his study and prayer and the bishop dismisses him and calls him to his office during Sunday School to tell him about obedience, respecting his elders, and the importance of appearance in the administration of the sacrament. [this little story is real, from a deacon in a previous ward, eight years ago]

This little story illustrates the issue which I am trying to describe. At times, under the best intentions study and prayer lead one to be at odds with a person's leaders. What is a person to do in such a circumstance?

GDTeacher,

You present a very interesting point. I know that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both taught the concept that members should not just be "robots" and accept everything from the mouth of our leaders. Prayer is an important part of the process, as is personal revelation. But it has to be acknowledged that one can't pray about every single bit of wisdom that we hear at Church...we'd be spending all our time on our knees vs. living the gospel itself. Your 'white shirt' example is a perfect example of members/leaders getting too "straining at gnats"-like. I always cringe just a little whenever I hear a leader make a comment about the young men dressed in the uniform of the priesthood, in their white shirts. Hopefully we all understand that it doesn't matter what's on the outside. It's the inside that matters most in the ordinances of the Priesthood.

But, there's is something to be said about the uniformity required. My son, who's 10, and I have had this discussion (just trying to prepare him for his 12th birthday). Hopefully, some other adult sat down with the young man in your story and explained to him that the problem with people in the Church is that there are people in the Church. The Church would be a great place to be if there were no people in it. The white shirt thing is just a "tradition" that got started somewhere, and caught on because of the symbolic relation of white to purity. While the Lord doesn't care about the outside, as much as He cares about the inside...still he expects his Priesthood holders to NOT distract anyone else (remember those people mentioned earlier) from being able to concentrate on the important reason for the Sacrament (the Savior) vs. noticing how "that boy" isn't very worthy because he's wearing a blue shirt/loud tie/long hair/etc (again those people in the Church mentioned earlier).

I've learned a long time ago, that the best way to deal with these "nefarious" people is to not fight every battle that comes up (that leads to ulcers). If it pertains to someone's eternal salvation, by all means pray, fast, study until you can find an answer to it...and then when the answer is revealed, do it! But somehow I dont' think anyone's salvation is contingent on the wearing a blue shirt vs a white one, especially when the Bishop has asked me to wear a white shirt to pass the sacrament . The CORRECT thing for the young Deacon to do would have been to get his answer about the "white shirt" thing (it's not really all that important), and then worn one anyway to 1) avoid Contention with his Priesthood leader (those dang pesky people again), 2) honor his elders (more people again), and 3) to help maintain the reverant atmosphere of the sacrament for others (man, those people are everywhere).

I think in some ways, we might be kindred spirits of sorts. One of the most aggravating things I hear in Church (usually from a Gospel Doctrine Teacher) is: "We should always follow our leaders. EVen if the leader's counsel is wrong, we will still be blessed for our obedience." (paraphrased badly, but hopefully you recognize the load of rubbish that is. I firmly believe, and I can find quotes from numerous prophets to support this belief, that the Lord does not want mindless, robots just accepting EVERYTHING from the mouth of imperfect men, without any thought to ask the source of all Truth.

I'm sorry, but I'm rambling again. I need sleep. I work graveyard so I've been up for awhile now and my mind feels like mush. Hopefully my post is intelligible and is on point with the topic and your concerns/questions/points.

Talk with you later,

Roy

The Ninja knows all, and sees all. Accept your fate.

[why me]

It doesn't matter what they *thought*. What matters is what was revelation. 

How do you tell the difference? Wait and see if it is renewed by the next prophet?

All you need to know to be able to tell the difference is to see it printed in an official work of the Church of latest date.

The way to tell if it is an official work of the Church is if it is published by "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

That has been the method now for many decades.

Pardon my newness here, but if BCSpace is correct, the Introduction of the Book of Mormon says:

The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

As I understand it, and I am certainly not as knowledgable as many of you, the Introduction along with the statements of JS, BY, and pretty much every other LDS prophet have led most members of the church to come to understand and to believe that the hemispheric model is correct. I know this is what I was taught as a child, as a youth in SS and seminary, in institute. It is what I taught on my mission. It is what I have been taught in Gospel Doctrine. If the tradition is so incorrect, as many here proclaim, why does the church not simply denounce it as heretical false doctrine and get on with it? Bruce McKonkie had no problem stating that much of what BY taught was false doctrine, why then doesn't the church just clear up the mess so we don't have to wonder about this particular topic anymore?

GDTeacher!

I am glad that you are here. I think that you will find that your knowledge will grow on these boards.

I can understand your feelings about this subject. I was also taught the hempispheric model but I have to say that I am not too bothered about it all. I have this feeling that knowledge can come in drips and drabs and we are discovering new knowledge every day. I remember that someone on the boards (I forget the thread) where he or she quoted a scripture from Alma, I believe that was very enlightening about this whole ancestral thing...does anyone remember the verse from Alma?

I think however that it would be wrong to say that it is false doctrine as you related in your post...I would prefer to say that more information is coming to light and from this information we can learn more specifics about the bofm. Why say false doctrine at all? People will always have opinions...and opinions can change as new knowledge and understandings come to light...besides this whole discussion about bofm lands has been going on for quite some time...decades I think.

(Thanks for the PM. I lurked on the other forum...I enjoyed your posts there but I think that the people here will give you a run for your money....the place where I used to post banned me because I didn't fit in...I used the same m.o. as here and I seem to fit in fine here. Strange on how intolerant the other forums can be if a person remains positive about the church,) Sorry folks for the digression but I couldn't send GD a PM until I changed my email address here and I can't seem to change it for some reason.

[thesometimesaint]

GDTeachers:

I've always worn the best clothes I had to Church. So it's no biggy to me whether its white, cream, green, blue, red, or even black. Yes, I do have a black dress shirt. But then I'm an old cantankerous type, and have to have a REAL good reason to do something.

For the youngsters, I'd say in the whole scope of things it really doesn't matter what color your shirt is, as long as it is the best you have. And if the Bishop requires you to wear a white shirt. Wear it with pride, serve in the Priesthood, and then change into what you like after church.

[why me]

GDTeachers:

I've always worn the best clothes I had to Church. So it's no biggy to me whether its white, cream, green, blue, red, or even black. Yes, I do have a black dress shirt.  But then I'm an old cantankerous type, and have to have a REAL good reason to do something.

For the youngsters, I'd isay n the whole scope of things it really doesn't matter what color your shirt is, as long as it is the best you have. And if the Bishop requires you to wear a white shirt. Wear it with pride, serve in the Priesthood, and then change into what you like after church.

In one of the branches that I attended all priesthood holders who passed the sacrement had to wear white shirts or they were not asked to pass the sacrement. I found the branch president to be uncompromising on that point.

However, I believe that one can wear any color shirt and still pass the sacrement...but ward or branch traditions can die hard...but I don't think that there is a set church policy about this.

[thesometimesaint]

why me:

I agree with Jeffrey Holland and not become too pharisaical about it.

[GDTeacher]

In response to Dan:

First of all, just to be clear, I'm aware of no "apologist" -- I have ambivalent feelings about that term; in one sense, it's unobjectionable and precisely accurate, but, in another, when it's used as a dismissal and to imply that the person in question isn't a legitimate scholar, I strongly resist it -- who denies the proposition that all or at least most Amerindians are descended from Book of Mormon Lamanites. Many of us do, however, have problems with the phrase principal ancestors that was (over some objections from members of the Scripture Committee, I'm told) inserted into the introduction to the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon.

Hopefully I did not use the word apologist in a dismissive fashion, as that was not my intent. My intent was to use it in the context of "defender."

I will admit that you have surprised me with the idea the all or at least most Amerindians are descended from Lamanites. I wonder if perhaps we are dealing with semantics. If the notion that a handful of what I will call "Lehites" intermarried with Asiatics, therefore creating a downstream genetic impact that happened to cross many of perhaps all Amerindians is what you are discussing, that is not what I am discussing. What I was describing is the notion that most members have the idea that the American continents were either completely uninhabited or largely uninhabited prior to the Jaredites and later the Lehites. Most members perceive that the few folks that came over were not just contributors to the genetic makeup of the Amerindians, but the primary contributors to the genetic makeup.

I'm not sure how surprised, let alone alarmed, most members of the Church would be to hear limited geographical thinking. I speak widely throughout the Church and, as it happens, currently teach the Gospel Doctrine class in my home ward, and I make no secret whatever of my views on Book of Mormon geography. I literally cannot recall ever having encountered shock or surprise or emotional turmoil on that account.

I think there are a number of variables at play here. I believe that there is the individuality of each ward that is important. I think the members of your ward may be particularly blessed to have someone such as yourself, with credibility, open the door to these more open discussions. I also think that you, as somewhat of a celebrity, carry a great deal of clout. Many would be afraid to look "stupid," by not knowing or acknowledging what you said, so they say nothing, whether they are conflicted or not. When I raised the topic of LGT last year in GD class, I was told by a counselor in our bishopric to not bring ideas of false doctrine into our class. Perhaps my personal experience jades my perspective as your personal experiences influence yours.

Surely it can't be true that most members think Joseph Smith translated in the conventional way. I've translated virtually every day of my life for the past, oh, thirty-five years. When I do it, it typically involves dictionaries, repeated reformulations, etc. I've never translated anything "by the gift and power of God" while gazing into a special stone.

I was inaccruate in my words. Most members of which I know have seen artistic renditions of Joseph looking at the plates deeply imbedded in their minds. There is at least one rendition of Joseph with unusual spectacles and a breastplate on, representing the urim and thumin, with the plates, all taken together. I have never seen a church approved artistic rendition of Joseph with a hat drawn up around his face, with the plates covered or not present, "translating" the plates. When the word translation is used, it implies taking from one language to another. The process used where Joseph was dictating the words of the Book of Mormon to a scribe whilst gazing into a special stone in a hat is not what most people have in mind. Most church members with which I have had this conversations were unaware that the translation process included a peepstone.

I myself don't believe that the prophet can lead the Church astray. And among the things that prophets have said, which I do not believe have led the Church astray, are denials of their own infallibility. I don't have time to gather them today (or tomorrow), but there are a number of such statements. And if one believes that, when the president of the Church speaks, the thinking has been done, then the debate is over. And if one does not believe that, there is no debate

To my knowledge, the church leaders have never claimed infallibility. George Q. Cannon was concerned about the possibility of the leaders failing the members when he said:

There is kind of a humorous statement that I had heard that I will badly paraphrase. "The Catholic Church claims that the Pope is infallible, but all of the members know that he is fallible. The LDS Church claims that the Prophet is fallible, but all of the members know that he is infallible." The notion that the prophet cannot lead us astray leads many members to the unstated conclusion that he is infallible. I am aware of some or many of the quotes to which you reference. No need to go looking for them, but thank you for your consideration in that regard.

I could give you a number of examples where I know from personal experience that "apologists" and at least certain very high ranking leaders of the Church are, even on these small issues, very much on the same page.

I'm certain that you could do that, so no need. I would expect that there would be many situations in which you could indentify significant discrepancies between what certain General Authorities and well-informed scholars believe.

Is it important that we in the Church all agree? On the big things, yes. On the small things -- and I consider the location of the final Book of Mormon battles a rather small thing (certainly as compared with the answer to the question of whether there were such battles).

Thank you for your time and consideration. I think I understand your perspective. Probably based upon my specific experience, I believe that there is a large chasm between what most members believe and what well-informed members believe. I do wonder why there is not a more concerted effort to rectify the discrepancies. With our efforts at correlation, we have made a big effort to have standardized approaches and lesson manuals. These manuals seem to hit at the lowest common denominator. Some wards are blessed with well-informed teachers or leaders and some wards have poorly informed teachers and leaders resistant to discussing things that are not clearly spelled out in our manuals. It appears to me that a person's experience in gaining insights in a church setting varies widely. I had a brother who spent a few years in a Pittsburg ward around Pitt and learned about more church history in GD there than he did in his BYU undergrad program, seminary, or the rest of his life in the church. The experience is not uniform. Perhaps my personal experience is just in the "low range" of possibilities on the distribution curve.

[GDTeacher]

You present a very interesting point. I know that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both taught the concept that members should not just be "robots" and accept everything from the mouth of our leaders. Prayer is an important part of the process, as is personal revelation.

But, there's is something to be said about the uniformity required. My son, who's 10, and I have had this discussion (just trying to prepare him for his 12th birthday). Hopefully, some other adult sat down with the young man in your story and explained to him that the problem with people in the Church is that there are people in the Church.

I think in some ways, we might be kindred spirits of sorts. One of the most aggravating things I hear in Church (usually from a Gospel Doctrine Teacher) is: "We should always follow our leaders. EVen if the leader's counsel is wrong, we will still be blessed for our obedience." (paraphrased badly, but hopefully you recognize the load of rubbish that is. I firmly believe, and I can find quotes from numerous prophets to support this belief, that the Lord does not want mindless, robots just accepting EVERYTHING from the mouth of imperfect men, without any thought to ask the source of all Truth.

The Ninja knows all, and sees all. Accept your fate.

 

Thank you for your insights. Both JS and BY were very clear about not wanting the members to be robots, but if you go to a couple of those infamous quotes, you can hear that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done." Those types of quotes and that imperfect people thingy that you mention, makes it sometimes difficult to tread water when a person is trying to do their best.

I stuggle with the requirement for uniformity. I think it is false, pretentious, and pharasical. I do acknowledge that some people feel more comfortable and less distracted if everyone is conforming. I think that is an unfortunate cultural aspect of the church that one would hope that the leadership would work towards purging. However, I do see no effort in that direction.

Perhaps like you, I think we need to take responsibility for ourselves, spiritually and in other ways. To rely soley on the leadership of the church as many do, I personally feel is akin dismissing our God-given capabilites, talents, and responsibilities.

[GDTeacher]

GDTeacher!

I am glad that you are here. I think that you will find that your knowledge will grow on these boards.

I can understand your feelings about this subject. I was also taught the hempispheric model but I have to say that I am not too bothered about it all. I have this feeling that knowledge can come in drips and drabs and we are discovering new knowledge every day. I remember that someone on the boards (I forget the thread) where he or she quoted a scripture from Alma, I believe that was very enlightening about this whole ancestral thing...does anyone remember the verse from Alma?

I think however that it would be wrong to say that it is false doctrine as you related in your post...I would prefer to say that more information is coming to light and from this information we can learn more specifics about the bofm. Why say false doctrine at all? People will always have opinions...and opinions can change as new knowledge and understandings come to light...besides this whole discussion about bofm lands has been going on for quite some time...decades I think. 

(Thanks for the PM. I lurked on the other forum...I enjoyed your posts there but I think that the people here will give you a run for your money....the place where I used to post banned me because I didn't fit in...I used the same m.o. as here and I seem to fit in fine here. Strange on how intolerant the other forums can be if a person remains positive about the church,) Sorry folks for the digression but I couldn't send GD a PM until I changed my email address here and I can't seem to change it for some reason.

Glad to be here. I'm sure I have much to learn here. I am still learning the forum rules, formal and informal. Thanks for your kind words.

I will say that I am confused by the apparent contradiction in your comment. If the LGT model is correct, does that not mean that the hemispheric model is incorrect? Can they both be correct, or is one incorrect? If one is incorrect does that mean it is false.........doctrine? Or is the inclusion of the word doctrine make the combined word pair too harsh for common usage. I think I understand what you are saying, just seeking clarity.

Thanks again.

[thesometimesaint]

GDTeacher:

I believe the Corrolation Committee did wonderful work in unifying the Message.

It eliminated alot of outight Speculation. We seldom itf ever hear about the Lost Ten Tribes being in the center of the earth anymore.

I believe it must cater to lthe east of Saints and bring them along in faith and understanding. At the same time providing the avenue for more personal study to whatever level that person wants. I believe the Church does that, and it is hardly the Churchs "fault" if people don't take advantage of the information that is available.

[GDTeacher]

GDTeachers:

I've always worn the best clothes I had to Church. So it's no biggy to me whether its white, cream, green, blue, red, or even black. Yes, I do have a black dress shirt.  But then I'm an old cantankerous type, and have to have a REAL good reason to do something.

Good for you!

Use your brains, your ability to choose, then go to your closet and see what is there. Close your eyes and choose. If it is white so be it. If it is purple, so be it. If it is black, so be it, but don't act too cool in your black shirt or they may suspect you are hiding something.