Simon Southerton's response to ....

[Brant Gardner]

The Dude:

But there is another related questions: are there limits on how far the Book of Mormon story can be reinterpreted before it becomes meaningless and void? Or is it so ambiguously constructed, and "LDS theology" so absurdly maleable, that really anything--anything--is possible? What are the limits of this liberal theology?

Fascinating question, particularly given the extremely liberal early position of the church vis-a-vis just about anything. Joseph Smith certainly didn't think twice about reading/reinterpreting Biblical history. Brethren in the early church were quite willing to posit a very old earth (at least compared to others of the time - they were still off by a long shot, even though they were talking millions, if I recall correctly).

The relevant question is whether or not the current reading of the text is at all reconstructive of the Book of Mormon. I can't think of any definition built on the text itself that would say so. It certainly reconstructs opinions, but I suspect that there are many opinions from the mid 1800's that I would similarly reconstruct on a scientific basis - including the ideas about the age of the earth.

[Brant Gardner]

Rollo Tomasi:

That is why I suggest the Church's revisiting past, incorrect assumptions, beliefs and teachings may be in order

As in the scholarly work that has been doing just that from nearly the beginning? Certainly it has been gaining momentum since the early 1900's.

Let me see if I understand this. You think the church should investigate the assumptions and understand the Book of Mormon against the real world? Maybe the scholars could formulate a group to facilitate that study and give it a funny acronym, like FARMS.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Are you prepared to suggest that Sunday School classes are determinative of the church's official position?

Church curriculum reflects official doctrine (or is, at least, supposed to), and many of the same incorrect assumptions we are talking about here continue in current curriculum.

To be clear, you cannot say that THE traditional belief and teaching was wrong. You may say that A tradtional belief and teaching was wrong.

What other "traditional belief" and/or teaching was there about Native Americans' blood lineage?

Since I can't think of any institution that has never taught anything that was later discovered to be incorrect, the problem isn't in the teaching.

I cannot think of one instance in which the LDS Church institution has ever admitted that it (as a doctrine or belief or policy) taught something that was incorrect or false. It just doesn't happen in the LDS Church for a variety of reasons.

[USU78]

Does the Iceland study blow the top off anthropological genetics as a science? Or is the incongruence of DNA & lineage charting a lark, a convenient dismissal of genetics to protect religious ideologies?

How very droll! And original. My congratulations. Play the adultery card to explain so vast a disconnect between a Southerton's expectations and data on the ground.

As to the substance, why should we need to conclude anybody is dismissing genetics at all? Science can do what it can do. It is limited by what it can observe. It is limited in what it can describe. It is limited in what it can predict.

Pointing out science's limitations is not the same thing as dismissing it.

USU "The lack of humility before nature being displayed here, staggers me" 78

[Jan]

I cannot think of one instance in which the LDS Church institution has ever admitted that it (as a doctrine or belief or policy) taught something that was incorrect or false. It just doesn't happen in the LDS Church for a variety of reasons.

EXHIBIT A: Ideas about the Priesthood Ban. In fact, IIRC, it was McConkie himself who made a bold statement about everything he has said and thought in the past was wrong (or something to that effect).

[Rollo Tomasi]

As in the scholarly work that has been doing just that from nearly the beginning? Certainly it has been gaining momentum since the early 1900's.

Let me see if I understand this. You think the church should investigate the assumptions and understand the Book of Mormon against the real world? Maybe the scholars could formulate a group to facilitate that study and give it a funny acronym, like FARMS.

Maybe it's just me, but rather than rely on FARMS et al. to correct past erroneous teachings by LDS leaders, shoudn't we hear this from the living prophets, seers and revelators? To borrow from an old Sunstone cartoon, is FARMS 'driving the bus'?

[charity]

Rollo, the Bus, the Church, is concentrating on what it is supposed to do, getting its busload to the destination. FARMS is just taking care of the barking dogs.

[Jan]

Rollo,

I'm a convert of 5 years. My understanding, since my investigation, is that the Church's position from a very early time has been to embrace all truth from where ever it comes (e.g., revelation and science).

I have a very different impression of this philosophical approach to learning than you do. I read Widstoe - maybe that is where I got it from. I'll have to check.

[Rollo Tomasi]

EXHIBIT A: Ideas about the Priesthood Ban. In fact, IIRC, it was McConkie himself who made a bold statement about everything he has said and thought in the past was wrong (or something to that effect).

McConkie was referring to his teaching that blacks would not receive the priesthood in this life, not the various reasons he espoused for the ban itself. And the Church institution itself has never admitted a mistake with regard to the priesthood ban and reasons given therefor (just a few years ago GBH refused to apologize on behalf of the Church for anything related to the ban).

[smac97]

The Dude,

> Well, that's one question and you may be right.

==Actually, I think it's the question. The question that arises when comparing "DNA evidence" to the Book of Mormon (more specifically, to contemporary interpretations of the Book of Mormon).

> But there is another related questions: are there limits on how far the Book of Mormon story can be reinterpreted before it becomes meaningless and void?

==Certainly. For example, interpreting the Book of Mormon as "inspired fiction" renders it "meaningless and void."

> Or is it so ambiguously constructed, and "LDS theology" so absurdly maleable, that really anything--anything--is possible?

==A strawman. Nobody has suggested this.

> What are the limits of this liberal theology?

==What "theology" are you talking about?

> Imagine that a time-viewing device is invented that allows us to scan the history of North and South America during the period of 600BC-400AD. If this technology finds nothing whatsoever indicating that Lehi & co. arrived in this hemisphere, is the BoM then proven as non-historical?

==Probably.

> Or is it so ambiguously phrased that LDS leaders and apologists would be able to propose that Lehi & co. settled a different continent, or even a different planet or parallel universe?

==Ah. I see you are not a serious partner in discussion. I'll be sure to disregard your posts in this thread from now on.

-Smac

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo, the Bus, the Church, is concentrating on what it is supposed to do, getting its busload to the destination. FARMS is just taking care of the barking dogs.

If by "barking dogs" you mean "fact" and "truth," then I agree.

[Jan]

EXHIBIT A: Ideas about the Priesthood Ban.  In fact, IIRC, it was McConkie himself who made a bold statement about everything he has said and thought in the past was wrong (or something to that effect).

McConkie was referring to his teaching that blacks would not receive the priesthood in this life, not the various reasons he espoused for the ban itself. And the Church institution itself has never admitted a mistake with regard to the priesthood ban and reasons given therefor (just a few years ago GBH refused to apologize on behalf of the Church for anything related to the ban).

I'll find the quote and let others judge. I think it is a fair response to your initial post. If you are going to whittle down what exactly you meant, that is a different issue.

[trim]

The debate over the usefulness of the Icelandic study goes back and forth, but ultimately I think it raises some valuable points that contra-mormons must deal with.

I personally would like to see a DNA study of a group that has known ties to a distant population, but have been geographically isolated for say 2600 years. I would like to see this study show that DNA markers exist and corroborate the descendency from common anscestors. To my knowledge this has not been done (I would love to see it if it has). This would at least establish a baseline for the reality of accomplishing such a task or whether or not the science would apply. The Icelandic study seems to be a baby step in this general direction. Its results don't bode well for the contras.

(excuse my ignorance for things biological, I am far too mechanically minded)

[Brant Gardner]

Rollo Tomasi:

Church curriculum reflects official doctrine (or is, at least, supposed to), and many of the same incorrect assumptions we are talking about here continue in current curriculum.

OK. You have a beef with the curriculum committee. At least we are discussing the nature of institutions and not pretending to be discussing science or truth.

That is where this discussion belongs. It is a history question and interesting from a social-science perspective.

It isn't a question of science.

It isn't a question of truth.

It is a question of what gets taught and who knows what and when. That is a very secular question, and one we might be able to get at through history.

Maybe it's just me, but rather than rely on FARMS et al. to correct past erroneous teachings by LDS leaders, shoudn't we hear this from the living prophets, seers and revelators?

Just when I thought I saw progress, you confuse theology and history again.

When has the church ever said that there should be no progress in science or in our understanding of history? When has the church suggested that the function of revelation was to disclose history and geography? It has never done this for the Bible, and there have been statements made about the Bible that are less than comfortable with modern understandings of the text. That is history.

As for the position of FARMS, you were the one who suggested that perhaps the church should be in the process of changing. Looking back through the history of the church, where to changes in opinions about history come from? I can't think of any that were related to prophecy or dogmatic declaration. I can think of many that reflect the opinions of the times. I can think of a number of times when there were differences of opinions as science sorted things out.

Why are you arguing for a different method than this church (or most others) have ever used?

Why do you keep falling back on a theological issue when you haven't defined the problem as theology?

[Pahoran]

But, despite such a disclaimer, even David O. McKay recognized that the membership was treating the book [Mormon Doctrine] as representing official Church doctrine (which is why DOM, unsuccessfully as it turned out, tried to make sure that didn't happen). See Gregory A. Prince, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, pp. 49-53.

So you admit that "the membership," whoever they may be, would be wrong to do so.

Thank you for that unusually frank admission.

It's settled then: Bruce's doctrine is not an authoritative source of LDS theology, and you know this perfectly well.

I knew we'd get there in the end.

Regards,

Pahoran

[xerego]

If by "barking dogs" you mean "fact" and "truth," then I agree.

Rollo,

Given your inclination to dismiss arguments without even reading them, I am not impressed by your supposed devotion to either "fact" or "truth". See, for example, the quote from you in my signature line.

Moderator: Do not question another poster's truthfulness. You need Rollo's permission to use his words as a tagline.

[Rollo Tomasi]

If you are going to whittle down what exactly you meant, that is a different issue.

Let me clarify what I meant: I know of no instance in which the LDS Church institution has ever acknowledged, admitted, or conceded any mistake in doctrine or teaching or action, nor any instance in which it has apologized for anything.

[The Dude]

==Ah. I see you are not a serious partner in discussion. I'll be sure to disregard your posts in this thread from now on.

Fine by me. Your line-by-line deconstruction is tedious to read and reply to.

[Calm]

Let me clarify what I meant: I know of no instance in which the LDS Church institution has ever acknowledged, admitted, or conceded any mistake in doctrine or teaching or action, nor any instance in which it has apologized for anything.

If only the standard was this strict when talking about what actually are the Church's doctrines and teachings.

[Kevin Graham]

Yes, McConkie doesn't represent official Mormon doctrine. But who can blame people for thinking it does? I mean he did write a book called Mormon Doctrine, and it wasn't as if the First Presidency wasn't aware of it.

[Jan]

Yes, McConkie doesn't represent official Mormon doctrine. But who can blame people for thinking it does? I mean he did write a book called Mormon Doctrine, and it wasn't as if the First Presidency wasn't aware of it.

Kevin, that is fair. It's also fair to acknowledge that it isn't when all the facts are laid out. Most members under that misapprehension do too.

[Daniel Peterson]

I know of no instance in which the LDS Church institution has ever acknowledged, admitted, or conceded any mistake in doctrine or teaching or action, nor any instance in which it has apologized for anything.

Since the Church as the Church has never taught a doctrine of Book of Mormon geography or Lamanite genetics or reasons for barring blacks from ordination, why would the Church as a Church ever need to issue a correction or retraction or apology on any of those topics?

Apologies don't seem to me to have much value (beyond fetishism, that is) if they come from a person or institution distinct from the person or institution for whose statement or action they're being issued. If I were to apologize for some of the things you've said on this message board, what point would there be in that?

[Tarski]

OK, I apologise for the double post but I really wish someone would explain what the point of the original argumen was. It seems like a nonsequiter to me ( I may be wrong)

I just don't get the point. So what if "the large majority of people living in Iceland 300 years ago have one or no living descendants"???

This seems to do nothing to contradict the fact that the DNA does in fact show that ancient Icelanders migrated from Scandinavia. Does it? Think about it a bit. What would be the analogy or the implications for our understanding of the origin og Icelanders? To suppose that they came mainly from somewhere else, say "X-land", but that exactly those ancestors died without offspring defies statistics since it implies that the forces of nature and random contingency of survival would have had to systematically kill off just those from the hypothetical "X-land". That represents an unexplained bias in nature. We can't do science that way can we? --always supposing that God/Nature is trying to thwart us by stacking the deck and ruining reasonable assumptions about probability and statistics?

I might be wrong but something inside me say that the Icelandic thing is irrelevant.

[Rollo Tomasi]

It isn't a question of science.

It isn't a question of truth.

It is a question of what gets taught and who knows what and when. That is a very secular question, and one we might be able to get at through history.

I had no idea that the concept of "truth" is so subjective and fluid in the LDS Church. Is a form of secular humanism seeping in?

Brant:

When has the church suggested that the function of revelation was to disclose history and geography?

I'll let Ezra Taft Benson answer this question:

The Prophet is Not Required to Have Any Particular Earthly Training or Credentials to Speak on Any Subject or Act on Any Matter at Any Time.

or how about:

The Prophet Can Receive Revelation on Any Matter--Temporal or Spiritual.

Brant:

As for the position of FARMS, you were the one who suggested that perhaps the church should be in the process of changing.

Yes, but by living prophets, not 'living' FARMS et al.

Looking back through the history of the church, where to changes in opinions about history come from? I can't think of any that were related to prophecy or dogmatic declaration.

The changes regarding polygamy and priesthood ban were not based on revelations? That's a bit of a let-down.

I can think of many that reflect the opinions of the times. I can think of a number of times when there were differences of opinions as science sorted things out.

So it turns out God is not the same today, yesterday and forever?

Why are you arguing for a different method than this church (or most others) have ever used?

Well, unlike "other" churches, I was always taught this Church is special -- the only true and living church on the face of the earth.

[Kevin Graham]

== Kevin, that is fair. It's also fair to acknowledge that it isn't when all the facts are laid out. Most members under that misapprehension do too.

Well, let's face it. Mormonsim has no systematic theology, which frustrates those trying to analyze it from an orthodox paradigm. Sometimes I wonder if we have any business as apologists referring to "doctrine" at all. Is it something said by a Prophet? Is it something said at conference? Is it something a prophet says is revealed to him? There are things that fall into all three categories that we apologists in our wisdom have declared "unofficial opinion."

As far as the facts in refuting the proposition go, much of it is relatively recent apologetic, which understandably strikes everyone else as, essentially, ad hoc. The riff raff over what constitutes doctrine and then "official" doctrine, doesn't seem to be a dilemma for traditional Mormonism. If it were an issue during McConkie's time I suspect he certainly would have chosen a different title.