How does the Local Geographic Theory

[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.

[thesometimesaint]

GDTeacher:

I can carry off the black shirt look, and look good doing it.

It covers a multitude of dietary indescretions.

[GDTeacher]

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.

I think there is merit to your comments about the unification of the message. I think my concern is that it is unified lacking forthrightness, accuracy, and clarity. Tying with this thread, should not the church rally around the LGT theory and teach it as such instead of allowing one class of folks to believe in the hemispheric theory and another class of folks to believe in the LGT theory?

You are right that we don't hear about the Lost Tribes in the center of the earth, or Quaker like folks on the moon. We don't hear about a lot of things.

As for personal study, I think it is grand. I also like and opportunity to discuss the things that I am studying. The internet forums like this provide kind of a pseudo-forum to do that, but it is impersonal. As for me, I can speak faster than I can type, so personal interaction would be desirable. I suspect that most people fall into that category as well, unless you are like my sister who can type 135 words per minute. I think it would be just grand to have a forum at church to have more forthright discussions while allowing for the "least of the Saints" to come along in faith and understanding. That being said, I truly believe that even the "least" should receive the straight scoop. They shouldn't be surprised when they find out later in life that there were important parts of the story omitted because someone else judged them to be unready for clarity and accuracy.

[helix]

I think there is merit to your comments about the unification of the message. I think my concern is that it is unified lacking forthrightness, accuracy, and clarity. Tying with this thread, should not the church rally around the LGT theory and teach it as such instead of allowing one class of folks to believe in the hemispheric theory and another class of folks to believe in the LGT theory?

The church is concerned with messages of salvation, not so much the geographical model of the Book of Mormon. Open up any Book of Mormon gospel doctrine manual, and you won't see references to geography at all.

If a particular theory is taught in class, then it was the teachers decision to teach what he wanted.

[charity]

Teacher: The Church is about salvation. You called for "study groups." This is all so unnecessary. Why should it be important where any specific place was? Fun to talk about. But in the scheme of things, it isn't even a marshmallow's worth of anything.

Move on.

[GDTeacher]

I think there is merit to your comments about the unification of the message.  I think my concern is that it is unified lacking forthrightness, accuracy, and clarity.  Tying with this thread, should not the church rally around the LGT theory and teach it as such instead of allowing one class of folks to believe in the hemispheric theory and another class of folks to believe in the LGT theory?

The church is concerned with messages of salvation, not so much the geographical model of the Book of Mormon. Open up any Book of Mormon gospel doctrine manual, and you won't see references to geography at all.

If a particular theory is taught in class, then it was the teachers decision to teach what he wanted.

I understand what you are saying, but in recent weeks we have discussed things like obeying the laws, the proclamation on the family, continuing revelation. The lesson manual outlines many aspects of history over the course of this year. In teaching the lessons, history is often put into context. My seeking is only to put it into correct context.

If we were intent on only teaching the doctrine's of salvation, why do we encumber it with selected historical elements and ignoring other selected historical elements?

[charity]

In our gospel doctrine class the historical elements which are brought in are the ones necessary to correctly discuss the doctrines. It is gospel DOCTRINE, after all. Finding out what was going on relevant to the revelation is important. Discussing what someone might or might not have said about Zelph pertains to our salvation how?

[GDTeacher]

Teacher: The Church is about salvation. You called for "study groups." This is all so unnecessary. Why should it be important where any specific place was? Fun to talk about. But in the scheme of things, it isn't even a marshmallow's worth of anything.

Move on.

You provide an interesting perspective for me here. We are encouraged to study, are we not? I had really not thought about the lack of importance of studying. In it's simplest form, the Gospel is really about the two great commandments and the Golden Rule. If we focused on these two elements, the studying would be for naught and the world would be a better place. I suspect that you are only suggesting that we abandon a level of study. Could you clarify, please. What level of study is important and what is superfluous? Who gets to decide? Would it vary by individual or would it be universal in nature? Since we are all given different gifts and talents, would it not make sense to develop the talents that we have and share those talents with others?

Sorry for asking so many questions. I've about run the course of this topic. If you want to let it drop that's fine with me, but if you do have comments, I would be interested in hearing them.

[charity]

Teacher, it isn't about studying or not studying. It is about how to allocate our resources the most effectively. So it is about WHAT we study. As far as the Church is concerned, getting us into the Celestial Kingdom is the goal. The resources of the Church must be geared to that goal. We can do what we want with our time and money. The Church doesn't have the same trivial privilege.

[Dale]

Personally I think the LDS like my Community of Christ (RLDS)allows for a variety of views rather than deciding models of geography for people.

Plus I know people who get quite upset if you disagree with them. And on this board when people disagree the moderators can sometimes barely keep the comments between dissagreeing people friendly at times.

I did not know of anyone when I was LDS who was not happy with the content of church classes. And yes content of LDS, or my church classes arn't always accurate. You can always find misguided, or wrong content. The content of church classes are made according to the common preference of the people, leadership involved rather than according to perfect accuracy.

[helix]

If we were intent on only teaching the doctrine's of salvation, why do we encumber it with selected historical elements and ignoring other selected historical elements?

That is your opinion and your gripe, not a general problem.

There are certain things that the church decides are important parts of the gospel that deserve mentioning. There are also many parts that don't get time to be mentioned. And there are many others that aren't really church doctrine but more along the lines of a detail of church history. The LGT model falls into that last category. But, if you are a teacher in church, and you feel a quick introduction to the LGT model is necessary, feel free to teach it.

[Dale]

It's hard to get into all the subjects possibly alluded to in GD teachers post because this is a thread on the subject of geography.

But basically I am reading Mormon Apocrypha edited by Dan Vogel & Brent Metcalfe. They critique purported problems with the georgaphic position of Dr. Sorenson in the introductory essay. A response to Dan Vogel in FARMs Review 16:1 is online to read, or buy. A lot of LDS teachers & individuals might agree with Signature Books & FARMS. But to bring in one position or another into class material to be fair both must be treated equally or both get no treatment in classes at all.

With detail in church history it's hard to get into even brief presentations without upsetting some people about what you left out, or included.

Another reason though I think it's denominational self protection. The LDS Church if they speak up on an issue of history, or geography tends to end up in a dozen new anti-Mormon books.

But I was LDS & never knew any LDS who wanted the other "historical elements" paid attention to. They like class material the way it is not the way some internet LDS might like it. I one time opened my mouth on the liberal vs. Book of Mormon historicity debates in class & the teacher kindly told me the topic was not to be discussed in his class. I do not care whether it's geography, historicity if it's off subject they will tell you. Basically LDS general authorities are in a way seasoned class teachers, and may give some internet LDS who want open presentations the same reaction I got from my teacher.

[Pokatator]

Teacher: The Church is about salvation. You called for "study groups." This is all so unnecessary. Why should it be important where any specific place was? Fun to talk about. But in the scheme of things, it isn't even a marshmallow's worth of anything.

Move on.

We've been to this old watering hole many times before.

In previous threads it's been brought up, and I still have a problem as many others do that, I can go to church for 53 years and get the same 3 year cycle of SS, PH classes and sure I learn more each rotation, but then somewhere in the middle of my life someone, someone most would call an "anti" mentions something like, "I heard that Joseph Smith had thirty-upteen-eleven wives and some of them were teenagers", or "DNA proves that the BofM is false, because....." on and on...

I've been blind sided that way many times on many subjects. I denied some things at first, but when I studied on my own I found that most of those claims have portions of truth to them, many can be disputed and some can't. But the point is I was left unarmed by the church. I would have loved to have had a "study group", I feel like that is the need this forum fulfills for me.

You can say all this stuff is only worth marshmallows, but when unarmed (uninformed) members are confronted with marshmallows some times they get roasted. I believe this "church only education system" feeds the opposition, they hide, they brainwash, they can't think for themselves, etc. attitude. Knowledge is power.

[Dale]

I am not sure the LDS can turn the education system over to the non-church education without it taking over. I know of good liberals & bad liberals. For the second time I am watching Living Hope Ministries Bible vs. The Book of Mormon film. The LDS Church would die if skeptics like Tom Murphy took over. My Community of Christ has way to much liberalism. But instead of leaving for a restoration branch I feel led to continue as an active member of the church rather than start a new congregation, or denomination.

To get back on topic I feel Tom Murphy's points against Book of Mormon georgraphy as well as a lot of the people in the film cannot be trusted. I am pretty confident the opposition can be rebutted on the things they said in the film. I buy every academic book for and against the Book of Mormon I can. I am reading during the week Mormon Apocrypha edited by Dan Vogel & Brent Metcalfe. I try and be informed by reading the best academic minds on the Book of Mormon, church history you name it. The LDS leadership made a wise decision in not allowing them to run the church education system.

One big reason is the critics have new citations from these academics harmfull to the LDS Church, and my church. They have empowered the opposition by providing enthusiastic participants against the Book of Mormon in films like the above. I much prefer my LDS friends to get burned by marshmellows instead of having marshmellows turned into raging brush fires by these vocal out of control critics. I see the difference bwetween some getting burned & millions getting burned.

One of the films LHM produces describes the transformation of the Worldwide Church of God from cult to Evangelical. When my denomination changed from a conservative to a liberal restoration denomination we had thousands become dissafected from my church. Some went to new denominations, and some formed independent RLDS Churches. Some became-anti-Mormons. Somebody tell me how you would educate 12 million LDS with divisive topics without becoming a six-million member church? The bigger the giant the harder the fall.

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

That may be true. In any event, it's untenable, it's undemanded by the Book of Mormon text, and it's been publicly contradicted by at least some prominent General Authorities over at least the past eighty years or so -- which permits me the freedom to disbelieve it while remaining a faithful member of the Church in full fellowship.

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.

I agree that, while at least one or two General Conference speeches have mentioned the seerstone in the hat, and while plenty of published historical sources mention it, no official Church art seems to depict it. Oh well.

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 personally don't see much substantive difference between getting the translation via a seerstone placed in a hat and getting the translation via a crystal stone set in a bow. Both are rocks. Neither process excludes "taking from one language to another" -- which is exactly what I believe was happening.

I believe that there is a large chasm between what most members believe and what well-informed members believe.

On certain secondary and tertiary issues, you're right. On the primary and fundamental issues, however, there is remarkably little difference between my believing academic friends and the most humble and poorly educated among the faithful. I spent a portion of today in the Manti Temple, where I expect that I was surrounded, to a large extent, by farmers and manual laborers. (Certainly those of my extended family who were there fit that category.) We believe the same things. We're members of the same Church.

There  I do wonder why there is not a more concerted effort to rectify the discrepancies.

I'm pedaling as fast as I can. If my writings on Mormonism really emerged from the lavishly paid full-time job that some of my critics devoutly believe me to hold, I would perhaps be able to do more. As it is, however, the historians and philosophers and "apologists" whom I know do as much as they are able to do. Patience!

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.

I'm not a big fan of most Church manuals. I told them that when I was called, many years ago, to serve on the Gospel Doctrine Writing Committee. The response was, "You're just the kind of person we want." But we were under rather rigid constraints, and, though I admired the intelligence and dedication of those with whom I served, I was largely as dissatisfied with the Gospel Doctrine teaching materials when I was released after nearly a decade on that committee as when I joined it. I don't use the Church manuals when I teach, except to find out what the topic is or what the chapters to be covered are.

[GDTeacher]

Teacher: The Church is about salvation. You called for "study groups."  This is all so unnecessary.  Why should it be important where any specific place was?  Fun to talk about.  But in the scheme of things, it isn't even a marshmallow's worth of anything.

Move on.

We've been to this old watering hole many times before.

In previous threads it's been brought up, and I still have a problem as many others do that, I can go to church for 53 years and get the same 3 year cycle of SS, PH classes and sure I learn more each rotation, but then somewhere in the middle of my life someone, someone most would call an "anti" mentions something like, "I heard that Joseph Smith had thirty-upteen-eleven wives and some of them were teenagers", or "DNA proves that the BofM is false, because....." on and on...

I've been blind sided that way many times on many subjects. I denied some things at first, but when I studied on my own I found that most of those claims have portions of truth to them, many can be disputed and some can't. But the point is I was left unarmed by the church. I would have loved to have had a "study group", I feel like that is the need this forum fulfills for me.

You can say all this stuff is only worth marshmallows, but when unarmed (uninformed) members are confronted with marshmallows some times they get roasted. I believe this "church only education system" feeds the opposition, they hide, they brainwash, they can't think for themselves, etc. attitude. Knowledge is power.

This thread did not start as a discussion of the depth of our teaching materials, but has kind of evolved towards that to some degree. Since we just kind of fell into it, I did not approach some of the core, fundamental issues that make it seem important to me to improve upon the status quo process. Pokatator has hit upon one such issue.

James Fowler's excellent book, Stages of Faith, talks about the various stages of faith, through which people may progress in life. Fowler is not LDS, so I don't mean to claim that his research and publication on stages of faith is definitive, but it is descriptive and squares with experiences in my life. One of the concepts is that the nature of people's faith evolves from infancy, potentially through adulthood, with the possibility of stopping progression at any point in time. Briefly, stage 0 is infantile. As people's faith evolves from being built around stories, to applying principles, to accepting responsibility, etc. the stages of faith evolve. According to Fowler, most people reach stage 3 sometime in adolescence. This is the stage where people are accepting responsibility for their action, but look to leaders and authority figures for definitive guidance. At this stage people defer much of their spirituality to people in positions of authority over them. Many/most people stop at this stage. This is true in Christianity in general as well as in the LDS church. There is nothing wrong with this stage, neither is there anything inherently optimal about this stage. In stage 4, a person takes responsibility for understanding and framing their spirituality. Essentially instead of defering responsibility to leaders as is done is stage 3, the person takes responsiblity for understanding their spirituality and religion. Outside of the LDS church most people that do evolve to stage 4, do so in their early 20's. Beyond that most people who evolve to stage 4 do so at mid-life, or around age 40. In the LDS church, we have created a unique environment which seems to be a catalyst for keeping people at stage 3 for an extended period of time. Missionaries are in a situation in which obedience, obedience, obedience to authority is taught and expected on a regular basis. They are given schedules to keep, lists of approved and disapproved activities, etc. They become firmly grounded in stage 3. Our college students that go to BYU, although potentially receiving an excellent education, are also grounded in obedience to rules and regulations. Marriage at a relatively early age is also another catalyst for staying at stage 3. People that move from stage 3 to stage 4 in their early 20's usually do so with relative ease, free from any turmoil. Those who move from stage 3 to stage 4 at mid-life often go through dramatic pain and suffering. When people talk about angry apostates, they are describing a very small, but very volatile subset of the people going through that stage 4 shock and anger.

Pokatator has brought up the concept of being unarmed. I was teaching a lesson on Abraham a few years back. One of the elements of the lesson was polygamy. I wanted to be more informed about that topic, so I did some internet searching, since I found my lesson materials to be sorely lacking. It was but a few clicks into my search when I ran into JS's polyandry. Surely that was not true! He should have been excommunicated for that! God does not permit his prophets to lead us astray! What is going on?! This was my toe into the water for my own stage 4 transition. I had been unarmed to deal with this issue in a constructive way. I could have gone back to some of the trite defenses we teach our youth, but they were unsatisfying and disingenuine. I needed to understand what was really going on. If I had learned things like this in sunday school, seminary and institute, I would not have blinked an eye. Since I learned this stuff at age 40, I have struggled to understand why it is that we are not armed better with accurate information as the normal course of business in our programs.

This topic has gotten way off course with the thread title. Perhaps I will start another thread dedicated to this topic.

[GDTeacher]

I'm not a big fan of most Church manuals. I told them that when I was called, many years ago, to serve on the Gospel Doctrine Writing Committee. The response was, "You're just the kind of person we want." But we were under rather rigid constraints, and, though I admired the intelligence and dedication of those with whom I served, I was largely as dissatisfied with the Gospel Doctrine teaching materials when I was released after nearly a decade on that committee as when I joined it. I don't use the Church manuals when I teach, except to find out what the topic is or what the chapters to be covered are.

Thanks for your comments and thoughts Dan.

Many of us, including myself, have been directed by our leaders to never stray from the content of the manuals. I realize that this is a local problem. As you have mentioned, you only use the topic and perhaps scripture chapters being covered as a guide to your own lesson preparation. Many of us are not allowed that latititude or we do not feel comfortable challenging our local leaders' requirements to teach only from the manual. The drumbeat of obedience is deeply ingrained in most members minds. They have not come to feel comfortable with the concept that it is okay to think for themselves and make their own decisions. Many lack self-confidence to pursue this course.

[Pokatator]

I am not sure the LDS can turn the education system over to the non-church education without it taking over. I know of good liberals & bad liberals. For the second time I am watching Living Hope Ministries Bible vs. The Book of Mormon film. The LDS Church would die if skeptics like Tom Murphy took over. My Community of Christ has way to much liberalism. But instead of leaving for a restoration branch I feel led to continue as an active member of the church rather than start a new congregation, or denomination.

To get back on topic I feel Tom Murphy's points against Book of Mormon georgraphy as well as a lot of the people in the film cannot be trusted. I am pretty confident the opposition can be rebutted on the things they said in the film. I buy every academic book for and against the Book of Mormon I can. I am reading during the week Mormon Apocrypha edited by Dan Vogel & Brent Metcalfe. I try and be informed by reading the best academic minds on the Book of Mormon, church history you name it. The LDS leadership made a wise decision in not allowing them to run the church education system.

One big reason is the critics have new citations from these academics harmfull to the LDS Church, and my church. They have empowered the opposition by providing enthusiastic participants against the Book of Mormon in films like the above. I much prefer my LDS friends to get burned by marshmellows instead of having marshmellows turned into raging brush fires by these vocal out of control critics. I see the difference bwetween some getting burned & millions getting burned.

One of the films LHM produces describes the transformation of the Worldwide Church of God from cult to Evangelical. When my denomination changed from a conservative to a liberal restoration denomination we had thousands become dissafected from my church. Some went to new denominations, and some formed independent RLDS Churches. Some became-anti-Mormons. Somebody tell me how you would educate 12 million LDS with divisive topics without becoming a six-million member church? The bigger the giant the harder the fall.

Hi Dale

I hope I never gave the impression that I am in favor of turning over church education to outsiders. The "small groups" I refering to was meaning within the church.

I know that I may seem a broken record on this issue, but the responses I have got from Charity and others is a broken record too. I have heard many times, there is only so much resources to go around, the church needs to only teach the basics, classes are designed for the seeker and new members, etc. and etc. My only concern is that you can live your whole life faithfully in the church as I have, and only get educated to a certain degree. The risk of that is when confronted with history, or doctrine, or anything contraversial (some true, some not, some partially) the member is blind sided, caught off guard, and at risk of a shaken testimony. This is me also. My personal problem is I have been a faithful member all my life, still am, yet I have never had a testimony. I have followed all the advice I have got all my life and got here, yet I only know for certain that Jesus died for my sins and belief and faith in Him saves me. My testimony has never gone further than that in regard to the church, or JS, or BofM, etc.

I beleive that the GDTeacher is very correct in his excellent post, that the majority of members are stuck in stage 3. The system keeps them there. Many are happy to stay there, I am not, at this point in my life, I want meat and not a steady diet of milk.

Dale you wrote:

Somebody tell me how you would educate 12 million LDS with divisive topics without becoming a six-million member church?

I don't know exactly either, but the risk of lack of knowledge is out there. I don't believe that the church should shy away from "divisive" topics. They have a lot of resources, the education system could find a way to include the "meat" subject. The church could combat the opposition with good quality DVDs and etc, targeted at the general population of the church at their learning level, the same level as the opposition. I have watched all the Living Hope tapes, and whether I agree or not on any, or all or some parts is not necesasary here, but I will say they are professionally done and they appeal to the masses of members, seekers, and the general population. I don't think the church would reduce to 6 million, it may grow because of it. Your comment I quoted, implies that the "divisive" topics can't be properly or adequately presented or disputed, I sincerely disagree.

Dale also wrote:

I much prefer my LDS friends to get burned by marshmellows instead of having marshmellows turned into raging brush fires by these vocal out of control critics. I see the difference bwetween some getting burned & millions getting burned.

I don't want anyone burned, by anyone. I am suggesting the church take the education role away from the "vocal out of control critics" by facing them head on, making better education materials than they do. By educating the members is the best prevention for the scenario you are implying. I can see a scenario of the church properly defusing many divisive and contraversial topics with education.

Dale, I truly appreciate your posts even if is seems we are disagreeing. I really think we are closer than it seems also. I have appreciated the GDTeacher's posts, they have been very thought provoking, logical, rational and intelligent. Charity, bless her heart, I have grown fond of, even though I seem to disagree a lot with her. I learn a lot here, again this seems to be the place I learn about the divisive and contraversial topics, this is the closest I have come to having a "small group" in the frame that I intented it.

Bless you all, from the "tator"

[why me]

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.

[why me]

I'm not a big fan of most Church manuals.  I told them that when I was called, many years ago, to serve on the Gospel Doctrine Writing Committee.  The response was, "You're just the kind of person we want."  But we were under rather rigid constraints, and, though I admired the intelligence and dedication of those with whom I served,  I was largely as dissatisfied with the Gospel Doctrine teaching materials when I was released after nearly a decade on that committee as when I joined it.  I don't use the Church manuals when I teach, except to find out what the topic is or what the chapters to be covered are.

Thanks for your comments and thoughts Dan.

Many of us, including myself, have been directed by our leaders to never stray from the content of the manuals. I realize that this is a local problem. As you have mentioned, you only use the topic and perhaps scripture chapters being covered as a guide to your own lesson preparation. Many of us are not allowed that latititude or we do not feel comfortable challenging our local leaders' requirements to teach only from the manual. The drumbeat of obedience is deeply ingrained in most members minds. They have not come to feel comfortable with the concept that it is okay to think for themselves and make their own decisions. Many lack self-confidence to pursue this course.

I think that you are probably allowed the leeway if you desire to have it. The manual can be fellowed blindly or be used as a guide...but the choice is yours to make. I don't think that the thought police are near by ready to pounce on you if you decide to spice it up a bit with more info that is not included in the manual.

Can you teach different topics that are not in the guide? Probably not. There is to be an organized procedure for the topic...but I think that you will have much freedom in presenting the lesson.

[Bob Bennett]

DCP:

I spent a portion of today in the Manti Temple...

Sorry I missed you Daniel. I was there as well, witnessing the marriage of my daughter to the son of a BYU professor. Despite my UofU background, it appears that our children will make a great match.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread...

[Rollo Tomasi]

This does not say the predominance of one genetic strain over another.

I think Bruce McConkie (I believe he had a hand in writing the "Introduction" first published in the 1981 edition of the BofM) would disagree with you:

"[F]or the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel. The Indians are repeatedly called Lamanites in the revelations to the Prophet, and the promise is that in due course they 'shall blossom as the rose' (D&C 49:24), that is, become again a white and delightsome people as were their ancestors a great many generations ago."

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 33 (emphasis mine).

[Confidential Informant]

And this thread once again proves that the critics are still angry that the TBM's refuse to act like the mindless fundamentalist you've long believed us to be. So, if we think for ourselvs we're rejecting the prophets. If we don't, we're mindless Morgbots. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

I still haven't seen a single quote regarding the location of Cumorah that can't be explained as mere assumption on the part of the speaker.

As to the LGM, if the only "weakness" you can find in it exists outside of the text, that's not a weakness.

Show me something in the text which is contradictory to the LGM. If you can't then all you've got is silly fundamentalistic arguments which basically consist you jumping up and down screaming "False Prophet".

C.I.

[charity]

Hi, Rollo. And what does "predominant blood lineage" mean? Haplogroup DNA? Blood type? mt DNA? Or something as yet unidentified by scientists which has brought about the fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham? And which will bring about the fulfillment of the promise given to the descendants of the Lamanites?

[why me]

This does not say the predominance of one genetic strain over another.

I think Bruce McConkie (I believe he had a hand in writing the "Introduction" first published in the 1981 edition of the BofM) would disagree with you:

"[F]or the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel. The Indians are repeatedly called Lamanites in the revelations to the Prophet, and the promise is that in due course they 'shall blossom as the rose' (D&C 49:24), that is, become again a white and delightsome people as were their ancestors a great many generations ago."

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 33 (emphasis mine).

I don't quite get what you are trying to prove here. I do believe that Mormon Doctrine as a book as been covered before. Mormon Doctrine is not scripture nor is it canon. Bruce had his ideas and others had their ideas when that book was written. Unfortunately, the book has the title Mormon Doctrine.

But really Rollo, you can take the dice and roll it all you want...it will still come up snake eyes or lucky seven or you may even crap out...depending on who is listening.