How does the Local Geographic Theory

[Confidential Informant]

BTW Rollo, don't you know already, CES manuals, statements by prophets, General Conference - none of that counts for anything - it's not doctrine if it's not in the scriptures, it's only opinion.

Again with the smartassery. Your's and Rollo's post are long on sarcasm and awfully short on any authoritative citations that indicate that just because something is in the CES manual that makes it "official doctrine." As to General Conference talks, I can't remember the last time a general conference talk ever broached the subject of geography and the Book of Mormon, In fact, I don't know if anyone ever has. That leaves you with statements of the prophets, and from Joseph Smith on down to Gordon B. Hinckley we have a long line of statements which loudly and consistenly proclaim an aversion to inerrantism and reliance on the text as the normative authority.

So, how, exactly, are we wrong for relying on the text as our primary indicator and relegating commentary on the text to a secondary position?

C.I.

[thesometimesaint]

Who Knows:

My Non LDS Great Great Grandmother firmly believe the Moon was made of Green Chesse. As she was well respected in her community. I gues we all must start believing that the Moon is made of Gren Chesse.

[Who Knows]

Who Knows:

My Non LDS Great Great Grandmother firmly believe the Moon was made of Green Chesse. As she was well respected in her community. I gues we all must start believing that the Moon is made of Gren Chesse. 

Show me the authoritative scripture that backs that up, then you might be on to something.

BTW, C.I., where's your smartassery comment for thesometimesaint?

[Paul Osborne]

As to General Conference talks, I can't remember the last time a general conference talk ever broached the subject of geography and the Book of Mormon,  In fact, I don't know if anyone ever has. 

Oh it has, and how quick the saints forget!!

President Marion G. Romney

Second Counselor in the First Presidency

Marion G. Romney,

[Who Knows]

Wow, Paul, I'm impressed. That was great.

BTW, how do you find this stuff? You have it all at your fingertips?

[Paul Osborne]

President Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, April 1928-Morning Session

"The passages which I have quoted from the Book of Mormon and the more extended discussion of this subject by Elder B. H. Roberts which was published in The Deseret News of March 3, 1928, definitely establish the following facts: That the Hill Cumorah, and the Hill Ramah are identical; that it was around this hill that the armies of both the Jaredites and Nephites, fought their great last battles; that it was in this hill that Mormon deposited all of the sacred records which had been entrusted to his care by Ammaron, except the abridgment which he had made from the plates of Nephi, which were delivered into the hands of his' son, Moroni. We know positively that it was in this hill that Moroni deposited the abridgment made by his father, and his own abridgment of the record of the Jaredites, and that it was from this hill that Joseph Smith obtained possession of them. "

[Paul Osborne]

Wow, Paul, I'm impressed. That was great.

BTW, how do you find this stuff? You have it all at your fingertips?

Ever ready and fully loaded.

Paul O

[Confidential Informant]

Yes, very impressive Paul.

And ultimately absolutley meaningless. All it shows is that modern Apostles made the same assumptions as everyone else.

We already knew that.

What I don't see is a "god has shown me that the Hill Cumorah is located in (add location)."

Why? Because no such authoritative proclimation exists. All you've shown is that prior assumptions get carried on.

C.I.

[thesometimesaint]

Who Knows:

Show me a Authoritative Scripture that states the Hemispheric Model is Church Doctrine.

[Who Knows]

Yes, very impressive Paul.

And ultimately absolutley meaningless. All it shows is that modern Apostles made the same assumptions as everyone else.

Which is why I had to post this piece of smartassery.

BTW Rollo, don't you know already, CES manuals, statements by prophets, General Conference - none of that counts for anything - it's not doctrine if it's not in the scriptures, it's only opinion.

[Who Knows]

Who Knows:

Show me a Authoritative Scripture that states the Hemispheric Model is Church Doctrine.

The Book of Mormon

[Paul Osborne]

And ultimately absolutley meaningless.  All it shows is that modern Apostles made the same assumptions as everyone else. 

President Marion G. Romney

Second Counselor in the First Presidency

Now my beloved brethren and sisters everywhere, both members of the Church and nonmembers, I bear you my personal witness that I know that the things I have presented to you today are true

[Confidential Informant]

And ultimately absolutley meaningless.

[thesometimesaint]

Who knows:

Show me where in the Book of Mormon it states that the Hemispheric Model is LDS Doctrine.

[Paul Osborne]

You mean just like he "knew" that blacks were inferior?

He assumed. Uncritical acceptance of prior assumptions.

Give me the conference statement where he bears his testimony to the whole church - representing the First Presidency. Give it to me right now!

Your treading on thin ice.

Paul O

[Who Knows]

Who knows:

Show me where in the Book of Mormon it states that the Hemispheric Model is LDS Doctrine.

I was being sarcastic...

Anyways, here's a serious question:

What do you think early apostles based their assumptions on? I would say their reading and praying about the BOM.

What do you think LGT apologists base their assumptions on? I would say modern day science - archaeology, dna, etc.

Has the BOM changed since this LGT theory has become more popular? No. Has science revealed things that would better explain the events of the BOM taking place with an LGT theory? Yes.

It just seems to me like a convenient way of explaining away problems in the BOM now that science shows that prior thinking is impossible, or unlikely.

FYI, the answers above are only my opinions, and are not backed up by any scriptural doctrine...

[GDTeacher]

And ultimately absolutley meaningless.

[Confidential Informant]

Your treading on thin ice.

Why Paul, are you gonna come beat me up?

Oh my.

I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat ... it appears that the negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feeling to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace." ... Race Problems-As They Affect The Church, an address delivered by Apostle Mark E. Petersen at Brigham Young University, August 27, 1954)

I hear ice cracking.

C.I.

[Confidential Informant]

Very interesting C.I. Does this mean that only canonize scripture and statements signed by the FP and Q of 12 are valid and meaningful? Should we ignore everything else and just study these sources?

Valid and meaningful as what? Official doctrine? Yes. Everything else is nothing more than "belief" and isn't entitled to the same authoritative consideration. Belief and teaching can be and often is the natural and logical conclusions of official doctirne, but not always and it can and does change as new light and knowledge are added.

C.I.

[Paul Osborne]

Your treading on thin ice.

Why Paul, are you gonna come beat me up?

Oh my.

I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat ... it appears that the negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feeling to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace." ... Race Problems-As They Affect The Church, an address delivered by Apostle Mark E. Petersen at Brigham Young University, August 27, 1954)

I hear ice cracking.

C.I.

I don

[trim]

I am just getting caught up with this thread som I apologize for back tracking a bit. I noticed a discussion of the 'know and 'know-not' categorizing of the members of the church, particularly in relation to LGT. My experience in EQ was one in which I asked point blank how many of the elders came to church or class with the expectation of learning something (anything actually) To my surprise only 1 of the 40 admitted that he did. I repeated the question with some clarification and there was no change. I fear that in many instances the 'know-not' crowd may actually be the 'know-not don't want to know' crowd. In those cases they arrived to a state of perfect knowledge at the ripe age of 21 (or whenever the last day of their mission was). My participation on this board is one of student I admit, but, that is refreshing since most of those I attend church with don't care to study or seek much. The "I heard...." and "So ans so said..." pretty much complete the understanding for too many I know. This mentality is more common than not in "the church" and I think many of the difficulties (priesthood ban, caffeine consumption, BoM geography, etc., etc.) came from this erroneous practice. While it may be true in some instances to state "The church believes..." It may be equally true that the "The church (meaning a majority of members) believe incorrectly..." I can recall many instances when my immediate beliefs on some subject were wrong. I don't think it is a problem for any other member past or present to admit the same regardless of what positions they may have held. I would qualify that with the fact that beliefs on some fundamental subjects must always be within certain bounds to avoid apostasy.

Regarding the LGT theory, I agree with its premise, but I find myself sympathizing with RT's earlier posts on some points. I wonder if Central America would have been the focus of the LGT in the absence of early speculation and curiosity expressed by JS and others regarding some of the archaeological finds in that region. From a mathematical standpoint I would find it difficul if not impossible to argue anything but a limited geography, but I wonder about confining the options to Central America. There seem to be some problems (mentioned in previous posts) that are fundamental. One I have not seen in the thread is Why would Moroni travel 1000's of miles to bury the plates instead of say a couple of hundred given the 'limits' of the BoM lands? I guess JS would not have had access otherwise, but I struggle some with that requirement for the LGT (not with the possibility of the journey, but the reasoning). I have seen limited geography approaches that attempt to confine the BoM to northeast US, but they aren't warmly received. This leads me to believe that although the LGT is developed from mathematical necessity based on the text, archaeology is certainly a factor.

[Confidential Informant]

There is no ice breaking under me. I believe elder Romney’s solemn testimony which I quoted earlier. Don’t you dare mock that again or I will call Dunamis.

I'm not mocking it Paul, I'm saying it's incorrect because it doesn't accord with the "revelations" i.e. the Book of Mormon. The very prophet that Peterson served under said that IT CANNOT BE TRUE.

Peterson was testifying as to the spiritual message he was delivering. He was not testifying as the veracity of geographical locations of the Book of Mormon. Get over yourself.

P.S. Go ahead and tell Dunamis on me. There is no rule that have broken except stepping on your feelings. That's not against the rule.

C.I.

[USU78]

I believe elder Romney

[Confidential Informant]

Why would Moroni travel 1000's of miles to bury the plates instead of say a couple of hundred given the 'limits' of the BoM lands?

Because he was on the run for approximately 34 years. He specifically says that he was being hunted. And the B of M specificly states that he did not bury the plates in that hill, rather he buried all the other records there but reserved those plates.

In short, the text supports the LGM. The critics know this. Thus, they pull out the quotes from past Church leaders and then expect Mormons to fall all over themselves acting like fundamentalists giving creedence to those quotes.

We don't. We aren't fundamentalsits. We don't believe in inerrantism. We never have.

C.I.

[Who Knows]

C.I. wrote:

In short, the text supports the LGM. The critics know this. Thus, they pull out the quotes from past Church leaders and then expect Mormons to fall all over themselves acting like fundamentalists giving creedence to those quotes.

Funny, I was thinking the exact opposite.