Simon Southerton's response to ....

[Rollo Tomasi]

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

As I noted repeatedly above, his book reflects what was meant by the word "principal" when the BofM Introduction was first published in 1981, as well as the traditional belief of Church leaders and members at that time ... and you know this perfectly well.

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

The First Presidency was indeed "aware" of Mormon Doctrine and, as is well known among the cognoscenti, was happy about neither the book nor its title.

[Rollo Tomasi]

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.

Boy, that sure added a lot to the discussion.

[Confidential Informant]

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

So, are the Icelanders "pure"? By that I mean, have there been no infusions of people from somewhere other than Scandinavia? If yes, then where is their DNA? It would appear to be just as lost as the DNA signiture of hundreds of thousands of founders.

C.I.

[Rollo Tomasi]

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?

I disagree. The Church actually has, imo. For example, the word "principal" in the current BofM Introduction -- it's original meaning ought to be clarified in light of present-day DNA findings. Also, current CES curriculum placing the BofM Ramah/Cumorah in western New York state as well as statements like present-day Native Americans being descendants of BofM leaders. A lot of "clean-up" could be done.

[awyatt]

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.

Interesting. Rollo states that Bruce speaks for the Church as a whole when he talks about dominant blood lines, yet Bruce doesn't speak for the Church as a whole when he says "forget everything we knew before."

Gottcha.

-Allen

[Kevin Graham]

== The First Presidency was indeed "aware" of Mormon Doctrine and, as is well known among the cognoscenti, was happy about neither the book nor its title.

I believe it. But if the "What is Mormon Doctrine?" were as hot an issue as it is today, I doubt they would have let him publish it.

I have this strange feeling that if 19th century Mormons were alive today, they'd be scratching their heads wondering why we've made Mormon doctrine so abstract, and virtually intangible.

[xerego]

Boy, that sure added a lot to the discussion.

Just like many of your posts.

[Rollo Tomasi]

The First Presidency was indeed "aware" of Mormon Doctrine and, as is well known among the cognoscenti, was happy about neither the book nor its title.

Yes, they were aware, but, as Greg Prince points out in his McKay bio, DOM and other Church leaders were unsuccessful in counteracting the general membership's acceptance of McConkie's book as representing official Church doctrine.

[Daniel Peterson]

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?

Your response appears to me to totally miss Brant's point. Is that deliberate wit, or inadvertent error?

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.

That the Prophet can receive revelation on topic X doesn't prove, in any particular case, that he has received revelation on topic X -- particularly when he hasn't claimed to have done so, or, even, has expressly denied that he has done so.

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.

FARMS has no standing to alter official revealed doctrines or practices. But, in the absence of revelation one way or the other, FARMS has as much standing as anybody else has to seek to alter common but non-authoritative ideas.

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.

No, that's a bit of a straw man. (Be serious.) Neither of those revelations was addressed, wholly or in part, to altering opinions about history. That opinions about history may have been altered by reflection upon them is true, but also secondary.

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?

You jest, surely. Brant didn't suggest that science is God. Brant observed what should be obvious -- namely, that barring clear revelation, we humans are left to sort things out for ourselves.

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.

And have you proposed anything to refute that?

I sometimes think, Rollo, that you simply enjoy jerking chains here.

[Jan]

== The First Presidency was indeed "aware" of Mormon Doctrine and, as is well known among the cognoscenti, was happy about neither the book nor its title.

I believe it. But if the "What is Mormon Doctrine?" were as hot an issue as it is today, I doubt they would have let him publish it.

I have this strange feeling that if 19th century Mormons were alive today, they'd be scratching their heads wondering why we've made Mormon doctrine so abstract, and virtually intangible.

Kevin -

I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination, but my impression is that the early 19th C Mormons would be scratching their heads but for different reasons.

I think it was *later* Mormons and leaders that started being more dogmatic, concrete, and conservative in their theology than Joseph Smith, Jr. ever was. I think there was a lot of free thinking back then.

I think we are seeing, in part, is a response (an "un-doing") to some of the McConkisms and others of like dogmatism. We really do have a very liberal theology but not everyone knows it.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo states that Bruce speaks for the Church as a whole when he talks about dominant blood lines, yet Bruce doesn't speak for the Church as a whole when he says "forget everything we knew before."

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- BRM's statement concerning American Indians' predominant blood lineage reflects what the author(s) meant by the word "principal" when the BofM Introduction was first published in 1981 (long before the author(s) had the benefit of DNA evidence). BRM's statement about the priesthood ban related to his (and others') erroneous teaching that blacks would not receive the priesthood in this life (he never repudiated the reasons behind the ban or the ban itself). Hope that clarifies.

[TOmNossor]

It doesn't refute Butler because there are corallarys between the events he describes as occurring in Iceland and events which occurred in Mesoamerica. What percentage of the native population was wiped out after the Spaniards came to due to disease and conflict?

Moreover, Mesoamerica suffered some fairly severe volcanic eruptions also.

After the death of many natives there has for the past several hundered years been an influx of immigrants.

Seems to me that Simon is simply making Butler's case for him.

C.I.

Much of the below may be address throughout this thread, but here are my two cents.

I am pretty sure that Jarad Diamond offered percentages as high as 95% for Mesoamerican

[charity]

Rollo, barking dogs are those critics who yap at the heels of the people doing the real work. Never doing anything productive, demanding the General Authorities take their time to respond to frivolous charges and claims, trying to show the world how important their own petty concerns are, instead of being out in the trenches doing any real work. That is the barking dogs.

[Kevin Graham]

== We really do have a very liberal theology but not everyone knows it.

We do now, for sure. I'm not convinced this was always so. After all, wasn't it Pratt who was threatened with excommunication for rejecting Young's Adam God theory? And that is supposed to be our prime example of what's not doctrine.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Your response appears to me to totally miss Brant's point. Is that deliberate wit, or inadvertent error?

Probably some of both.

FARMS has no standing to alter official revealed doctrines or practices.  But, in the absence of revelation one way or the other, FARMS has as much standing as anybody else has to seek to alter common but non-authoritative ideas.

But we're talking about authoritative ideas.

Brant observed what should be obvious -- namely, that barring clear revelation, we humans are left to sort things out for ourselves.

I agree; I would just like to see the Brethren clear this up once and for all.

I sometimes think, Rollo, that you simply enjoy jerking chains here.

Sometime, yes; other times, no. In this case, I sincerely would like the Brethren to decide the issue, and make any necessary corrections to past teachings and current curriculum.

[Rollo Tomasi]

That is the barking dogs.

Thanks for the clarification.

[trim]

Quote RT:

As I noted repeatedly above, his book reflects what was meant by the word "principal" when the BofM Introduction was first published in 1981, as well as the traditional belief of Church leaders and members at that time ... and you know this perfectly well.

I agree with your point generally that the typical member of the church, and perhaps many leaders of the church, adamantly put forth opinions that were founded on limited and perhaps incorrect assumptions. Your position seems to follow along the lines of the premise of Bushman' cultural biography of JS which illustrates that members and even prophets do not exist in an intellectual vaccum. Overcoming the opinions (sometimes admantly put forth as truths) of past members and leaders certainly creates a difficulty when taken out of context (including cultral context). RT quoted from the talk Fundamentals of Following a Prophet (the title is something along those lines) and the concept of following the living instead of the dead (current versus past understanding) seems to apply to the debate on "principal ancestors". A general principle of allowing for increased light that may completely reverse previous understanding (not an alteration of truth) was understood well by McConkie.

[Rollo Tomasi]

A general principle of allowing for increased light that may completely reverse previous understanding (not an alteration of truth) was understood well by McConkie.

I agree, which is why I think the non-canonical BofM Introduction and curriculum should be modified or clarified as a result of this "increased light."

[Dan Vogel]

Butler

[Confidential Informant]

Butler

[trim]

Quote RT:

I agree, which is why I think the non-canonical BofM Introduction and curriculum should be modified or clarified as a result of this "increased light."

I think many would agree with that.

The hard part is controlling the justification for such changes in an age when the doctines of man can easily be misinterpreted for light.

[cdowis]

> For example, the word "principal" in the current BofM Introduction -- it's original meaning ought to be clarified in light of present-day DNA findings.

Let us look at its current meaning: "First, highest, or foremost in importance, rank, worth, or degree; chief."

Now compare that with the anti-Mormon meaning: (majority) "The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total."

Now, please tell us what needs to be explained. Before answering, do you understand the difference between these two words, and why the antimormons use the definition above?

The antimormons have poisoned your mind ===>>

Please explain how DNA research has anything to do with the ********actual*********dictionary meaning.

Thanks mucho.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Butler

[cdowis]

>As well as being unsupported by other parts of the text.

Since I do not have this reference, could you perhaps start a new thread and summarize his arguments. I have engaged in many discussions on LGT, and would be interested in his citations fr the BOM.