BofM Hill Cumorah?

[cdowis]

Undoubtedly..

They grew up being taught this concept in church. It was a teaching of the Church.

This notion that it was not â??officialâ? is nothing but a Whack-a mole apologetic smoke screen.

Growing up in the Church and as a missionary nor attending BYU were teachings divided in to â??official and â??unofficialâ?.. Not once have I ever heard a General Authority stand in conference as say.. Now I am going to talk about some unofficial doctrines.

You know, there is a TV series that I now watch on DVD called Earth 2 which supposedly occurred on an uninhabited planet (more or less). I really enjoy the story and the actors, the scenery. Very nice.

Then I read a review, and all he could talk about was the technical errors, e.g. the obvious jet stream in the sky. I had never noticed any such thing, just enjoyed the movie.

When I go to conference and other meetings with the GA's, I don't think about the flaws, but the spirit. I am not waiting to pounce on them for every grammatical error, or other errors. I want to be enlightened.

And then there are others who do not share my passion for enrichment. Looking for specific statements on "official doctrine" or "this is my opinion". That is their focus.

Perhaps, sadly, the GA's are more careful now to satisfy the critics.

[Russ]

Undoubtedly..

They grew up being taught this concept in church. It was a teaching of the Church.

This notion that it was not â??officialâ? is nothing but a Whack-a mole apologetic smoke screen.

Growing up in the Church and as a missionary nor attending BYU were teachings divided in to â??official and â??unofficialâ?.. Not once have I ever heard a General Authority stand in conference as say.. Now I am going to talk about some unofficial doctrines.

"Not once have I ever heard a General Authority stand in conference as say.. Now I am going to talk about some unofficial doctrines."

Imagine that.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dan, did you just recommend Deseret as a legitimate source for things LDS?

You were expecting that I would denounce Deseret Book as "anti-Mormon," or something?

Of course they're "a legitimate source for things LDS." They're not the only one, and they're far from infallible, but it seems unlikely that something published by Deseret Book and marketed by Deseret Book over the long haul is going to contradict official Church doctrines in any obvious and explicit way. Which was my point.

Undoubtedly..

They grew up being taught this concept in church. It was a teaching of the Church.

You're repeating yourself.

Of course it was "a teaching of the Church" -- in the sense that it was almost universally assumed in the Church and therefore, to the extent that Book of Mormon geography came up in Church sermons and lessons, it was taught in the Church. Nobody denies this obvious fact.

But it was never an official doctrine of the Church, and it isn't an official doctrine of the Church now.

This notion that it was not â??officialâ? is nothing but a Whack-a mole apologetic smoke screen.

Is the sentence immediately above intended to count as your evidence?

Growing up in the Church and as a missionary nor attending BYU were teachings divided in to â??official and â??unofficialâ?.. Not once have I ever heard a General Authority stand in conference as say.. Now I am going to talk about some unofficial doctrines.

Nevertheless, we all know and we have always all known that the divinity of Christ, the efficacy of the atonement, the scriptural status of the Bible and the Book of Mormon, the resurrection, the immortality of the human soul, and several other such notions are official doctrines of the Church. Explicit denials of them will not be published by Deseret Book, will not be published in the Ensign, will not be published in periodicals produced by Brigham Young University, and will not (long) be taught at Brigham Young University. Yet the concept of a Mesoamerican Cumorah can be and has been published by Deseret Book, published in the Ensign, published in periodicals produced by Brigham Young University, and taught at Brigham Young University.

If a candidate for a temple recommend declares her disbelief in God, her rejection of the atonement of Christ, and/or her repudiation of the priesthood leadership of the Church, she is not to receive a temple recommend. If she declares her belief in a Mesoamerican Cumorah for the final battles rather than in a New York location, her bishop will still give her a temple recommend. (And at least one bishop currently serving, though puzzled by the fact that she brought it up during a temple recommend interview, will nod his agreement.)

The mere fact that General Authorities don't routinely preface their talks or portions of their talks with "I shall now speak about unofficial doctrine" doesn't grant anybody the license to presume that every portion of every conference talk, and even every proposition potentially derivable from every portion of every conference talk, represents a declaration of official and binding Church doctrine.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

"Not once have I ever heard a General Authority stand in conference as say.. Now I am going to talk about some unofficial doctrines."

Imagine that.

Wow

Russ

I know you know this. That not everything that is uttered by a GA is automatic doctrine. Imagine that

[Russ]

You were expecting that I would denounce Deseret Book as "anti-Mormon," or something?

Of course they're "a legitimate source for things LDS." They're not the only one, and they're far from infallible, but it seems unlikely that something published by Deseret Book and marketed by Deseret Book over the long haul is going to contradict official Church doctrines in any obvious and explicit way. Which was my point.

You're repeating yourself.

The JoD has been in it for the long haul.

And I purchased the Book of Commandments through Deseret. In fact, I purchased it not online (not that it makes any difference) but in the bookstore in San Diego. And I've watched LDS routinely deny many of the old LDS doctrines contained in those books.

Dan, I think you mean Deseret can be trusted to put out LDS church doctrines when they agree with you.

Of course it was "a teaching of the Church" -- in the sense that it was almost universally assumed in the Church and therefore, to the extent that Book of Mormon geography came up in Church sermons and lessons, it was taught in the Church. Nobody denies this obvious fact.

But it was never an official doctrine of the Church, and it isn't an official doctrine of the Church now.

Is the sentence immediately above intended to count as your evidence?

Do you mean to say that all those LDS leaders who espoused the idea considered it just their own personal opinion and that their opinion was most likely mistaken? As someone pointed out earlier in this thread: they'd never heard anyone in G.C. state that what they were about to say was only their opinion.

Nevertheless, we all know and we have always all known that the divinity of Christ, the efficacy of the atonement, the scriptural status of the Bible and the Book of Mormon, the resurrection, the immortality of the human soul, and several other such notions are official doctrines of the Church. Explicit denials of them will not be published by Deseret Book, will not be published in the Ensign, will not be published in periodicals produced by Brigham Young University, and will not (long) be taught at Brigham Young University. Yet the concept of a Mesoamerican Cumorah can be and has been published by Deseret Book, published in the Ensign, published in periodicals produced by Brigham Young University, and taught at Brigham Young University.

And it's also been taught as "true" by many LDS authorities. Would someone make up their mind?

If a candidate for a temple recommend declares her disbelief in God, her rejection of the atonement of Christ, and/or her repudiation of the priesthood leadership of the Church, she is not to receive a temple recommend. If she declares her belief in a Mesoamerican Cumorah for the final battles rather than in a New York location, her bishop will still give her a temple recommend. (And at least one bishop currently serving, though puzzled by the fact that she brought it up during a temple recommend interview, will nod his agreement.)

Sure, I know what you mean. Belief in the specific location of Cumorah is a non-essential, just as a Christian can side with Calvin or Arminius and not be ushered out the front door. (Well, some wacko Christian churches are indeed that legalistic. God help them. It shouln't be that way, but that doesn't stop them, no?)

But that hasn't stopped some GA's from stating unequivically that New York Cumorah is "it." Who are we to believe? You or them?

This whole matter could be settled with a note from Hinckley to the Smithsonian: "Bring your shovels."

But the LDS church won't do that, will they. I think it's because they know nothing's there.

The mere fact that General Authorities don't routinely preface their talks or portions of their talks with "I shall now speak about unofficial doctrine" doesn't grant anybody the license to presume that every portion of every conference talk, and even every proposition potentially derivable from every portion of every conference talk, represents a declaration of official and binding Church doctrine.

Dan, I've met other Mormons who would disagree with that statement completely. For them, G.C. is mecca and the speakers are mouth pieces of God on earth. Perhaps like some Christians who idolize their pastors. And perhaps how Young desired that he be idolized as he had "never sent out a sermon to men that couldn't be considered Scripture."

The bottom line is that some Mormons believe as you regarding whether or not G.C. is binding (every word) and some don't. It's Dr. Shades' Internet Mormons vs. the Chapel Mormons once again. <wink>

[grego]

"Watson is not a general authority, and has no authority to declare doctrine.

You still take us for fools, do you?"

I never called you a fool.

If you're going to insist that I did, or that I think that of you, I have no reason to discuss anything at all with you.

I think you think we are fools. Your questions have been answered, and yet you continue to slaver. You've been asked questions, and you continue to avoid answering.

Well, either that or someone else...

[Sargon]

Do you mean to say that all those LDS leaders who espoused the idea considered it just their own personal opinion and that their opinion was most likely mistaken?

But that hasn't stopped some GA's from stating unequivically that New York Cumorah is "it." Who are we to believe? You or them?

Yes, they did in fact consider those things to be their personal opinions, and not binding truth upon all saints. Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith was not too shy to add to the accepted official canon. He in fact did add to the canon. He added doctrine, revelation, truth that was to be binding upon the saints.

JFS also wrote alot about evolution, and decried it as an enemy to the gospel. He also wrote about the Hill Cumorah. He wrote about and believed in many things. What he did not do however was describe any of those beliefs as official binding church doctrine. He knew how to do that if it was needed, as seen by his adding to the canon. He did not take the opportunity to expand the canon to include his thoughts about Cumorah, evolution, or some other controversial topics. He didn't do it, nor have any of the Presidents of the church.

Those past leaders did exactly what they were commanded to do, and that was to preach the gospel to the best of their ability.

[Noggin]

Let me ask you Noggin, of the hundreds of battles that Joseph might have been aware of, why did he choose only this one to mirror and why did he choose the level of detail that he did to mirror it, and not more or less detail? It would seem there is absolutely no pattern in the BoM of major events mirroring 19th century battles, and that this alleged instance is nothing more than a weak coincidence.

Sargon

Well hmm. I tried to say that if you stack Holley's contributions all up together... the overall picture started to look fishy, not that it actually was fishy. The degree of "fishiness" all depends on the depth and breadth of one's testimony, I suppose.

Why did Joseph Smith choose the Battle of Moraviantown (Battle of Thames)? There are many possible answers, one of which is, obviously, he didn't and it is all coincidence. Here is my speculation: Young Joseph Smith was an impressionable 8 year old when Tecumseh was killed, ending the Indian aggression opposing America. It was monumental. Not only was it monumental but it was fodder of the most fertile kind for child's play. Everyone talked about it. Most probably, young boys all across America acted out this battle with their friends much like the kids do today with Power Rangers, Transformers, Justice League and Spiderman etc (I have a 5 year old boy obsessed with these things). Cowboys and Injuns play acting was hugely popular and a staple to American folklore hero worship and all the rage in the 19th century even as late as the 1970's. Now days not so much if at all. John Wayne comes to mind as the 70's hero... Clint Eastwood in the 80's but after that it's kind of a dying breed. Again, my speculation is that young Joseph Smith was very familiar with this battle, it's significance, and play acted it out as part of hero worship fantasy. With that soupy backdrop, it is not hard at all to see him wanted to incorporate some sort of Tecumseh esque figure into his book... if he was truly inventing the Book of Mormon that is.

It's fun to think about (for some of us), but does not do much good unless the rest of Holley's maps are picked apart and analyzed.

Noggin

[Daniel Peterson]

The JoD has been in it for the long haul.

So?

Does the Journal of Discourses deny the deity of Christ, repudiate the concept of human immortality, discard the Book of Mormon, reject the prophethood of Joseph Smith, or contradict any other official doctrine of the Church?

And I purchased the Book of Commandments through Deseret. In fact, I purchased it not online (not that it makes any difference) but in the bookstore in San Diego.

So?

Does the Book of Commandments deny the deity of Christ, repudiate the concept of human immortality, discard the Book of Mormon, reject the prophethood of Joseph Smith, or contradict any other official doctrine of the Church?

Dan, I think you mean Deseret can be trusted to put out LDS church doctrines when they agree with you.

No, that's not what I mean. Not even close.

I haven't said that what Deseret Book puts out is "Church doctrine." I've denied that once, and I've denied that a second time, and I deny it yet again.

I said that Deseret Book doesn't typically publish things that contradict Church doctrine. And I said that once and I said that twice and I said that once again.

Do you mean to say that all those LDS leaders who espoused the idea considered it just their own personal opinion and that their opinion was most likely mistaken?

I would say that those who reflected the idea -- they very seldom actually argued for it; they never argue for it today -- most likely didn't give it a great deal of thought. That's the point about widespread or even universally shared assumptions: They aren't questioned. They're simply presumed.

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread: they'd never heard anyone in G.C. state that what they were about to say was only their opinion.

Quite true. Which means that, when opinions are spoken over the pulpit, they're seldom labeled as such. And yet it would be quite misguided to assume that every sentence of every general conference address represents official, binding Church doctrine -- let alone that every possible proposition that can be derived from every sentence of every general conference address does.

And it's also been taught as "true" by many LDS authorities. Would someone make up their mind?

I've made my decision, pending either revelation or further information to the contrary. Until a revelation is received on the subject, Church members are entirely free to hold whatever opinion they wish to hold on the subject of the geography of the Book of Mormon.

(It's amusing, incidentally, that we're often depicted as mind-controlled robots. And yet, when a case comes along plainly demonstrating that we're not mind-controlled robots and that we can form our own opinions, we're told that we ought to be mind-controlled robots.)

But that hasn't stopped some GA's from stating unequivically that New York Cumorah is "it." Who are we to believe? You or them?

Since there is no official doctrine on the matter, you're free to believe anybody you choose. Or, even better, you're free to use your own mind. That's what I've done.

This whole matter could be settled with a note from Hinckley to the Smithsonian: "Bring your shovels."

Been there, done that. Effectively, anyway. As Professor John Clark of BYU has already pointed out in the FARMS Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, the New York hill is archaeologically clean. There isn't much of anything there. (I believe I already mentioned this?)

But the LDS church won't do that, will they. I think it's because they know nothing's there.

That's right. They're all cynical unbelievers. Oh yes.

You're repeating yourself. Tighten up that tin-foil helmet. Watch out for black helicopters. (I believe I already suggested that.)

Dan, I've met other Mormons who would disagree with that statement completely. For them, G.C. is mecca and the speakers are mouth pieces of God on earth. Perhaps like some Christians who idolize their pastors. And perhaps how Young desired that he be idolized as he had "never sent out a sermon to men that couldn't be considered Scripture."

Perhaps they view general conference much the way I do. I listen to every word. I work my way carefully through the conference issue of the Ensign. I take these things very, very seriously. You are wrong to conclude that I don't.

The bottom line is that some Mormons believe as you regarding whether or not G.C. is binding (every word) and some don't. It's Dr. Shades' Internet Mormons vs. the Chapel Mormons once again. <wink>

Right. And every time I've taken one of his silly diagnostic tests, I come out very strongly as a "Chapel Mormon."

And yet, if I'm not the quintessential "Internet Mormon" there are none.

My conclusion? There are none. And poor Mr. Shades's dichotomy is absurd. It always has been.

[Calm]

If it is the book that I am thinking of, the Book of Commandments may be sold at DB bookstores, but it is not distributed by Deseretbooks, IIRC. Like Joseph Smith's New Translation, it's from an RLDS/CoC publisher/distributor, Herald House.

The individual DB bookstores sell more than just what Deseretbook and its affiliates publish and/or distribute. The Book of Commandments is not available from the online store so the stocking of both the BoC and the Inspired Version is likely a decision of the store's buyer. It certainly was in the church bookstore that I worked in a few years ago.

[Sargon]

Well hmm. I tried to say that if you stack Holley's contributions all up together... the overall picture started to look fishy, not that it actually was fishy. The degree of "fishiness" all depends on the depth and breadth of one's testimony, I suppose.

Why did Joseph Smith choose the Battle of Moraviantown (Battle of Thames)? There are many possible answers, one of which is, obviously, he didn't and it is all coincidence. Here is my speculation: Young Joseph Smith was an impressionable 8 year old when Tecumseh was killed, ending the Indian aggression opposing America. It was monumental. Not only was it monumental but it was fodder of the most fertile kind for child's play. Everyone talked about it. Most probably, young boys all across America acted out this battle with their friends much like the kids do today with Power Rangers, Transformers, Justice League and Spiderman etc (I have a 5 year old boy obsessed with these things). Cowboys and Injuns play acting was hugely popular and a staple to American folklore hero worship and all the rage in the 19th century even as late as the 1970's. Now days not so much if at all. John Wayne comes to mind as the 70's hero... Clint Eastwood in the 80's but after that it's kind of a dying breed. Again, my speculation is that young Joseph Smith was very familiar with this battle, it's significance, and play acted it out as part of hero worship fantasy. With that soupy backdrop, it is not hard at all to see him wanted to incorporate some sort of Tecumseh esque figure into his book... if he was truly inventing the Book of Mormon that is.

It's fun to think about (for some of us), but does not do much good unless the rest of Holley's maps are picked apart and analyzed.

Noggin

The most ironic thing about this so-called parallel is that Tecumsah was the villain, while Teancum was the hero. Joseph missed the most obvious and basic detail.

Sargon

[Sargon]

What I find most hilarious about the Chapel/Internet Mormon dichotomy is that most of the leading scholars with the most progressive ideas don't spend a single hour of their day debating online.

Where's Sorenson? Welch? Bickmore? Tvedtnes? Gee? Clark? Reynolds? Roper? Ricks? Sperry? Skousen? Brown? Madsen?

Unless one or more of them are here under a secret alias, I have never noted their presence on the internet, except Gee very rarely I think.

The cute dichotomy does not reflect reality.

Sargon

[Noggin]

The most ironic thing about this so-called parallel is that Tecumsah was the villain, while Teancum was the hero. Joseph missed the most obvious and basic detail.

Sargon

Quoted from the James Madison Center:

"Tecumseh is a genuine American hero: he embodied the virtues Americans respect. Nonetheless it is doubtful than he â?? even with a more prudent brother â?? could have done more than delay the U.S. expansion."

source: http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/main_pag...ecumseh/bio.htm

Tecumseh evoked so much admiration and respect that a mountain was named after him... and some even named their children after him. Such one is a lad born Tecumseh Sherman. You might recall him better as William Tecumseh Sherman. W. Tecumseh Sherman was a civil war hero serving as a General under Ulysses S Grant. Tecumseh Sherman eventually became Commanding General of the Army in the latter part of the 19th century.

And if Tecumseh of the Battle of Moraviantown was such a villain, why is his bronzed statue so immortalized at the United States Naval Academy?

[tolkienapostle]

While not to interested in the subject, there is a good set of books on the subject called the Lost lands of the Book of Mormon, there is a second one two, cant remember the name. The suthor is Phyllis Olive, i think Deseret book stopped carrying it a few years ago but it is still on Amazon. Even if you dont go along with the authors views, she has done her research and it is a great read.

[Calm]

What I find most hilarious about the Chapel/Internet Mormon dichotomy is that most of the leading scholars with the most progressive ideas don't spend a single hour of their day debating online.

Where's Sorenson? Welch? Bickmore? Tvedtnes? Gee? Clark? Reynolds? Roper? Ricks? Sperry? Skousen? Brown? Madsen?

Unless one or more of them are here under a secret alias, I have never noted their presence on the internet, except Gee very rarely I think.

Some of them hung out on ZLMB in its beginning days, but it seems they quickly grew disenchanted with message boarding.

The cute dichotomy does not reflect reality.

Sargon

Ain't that the truth. His 'study' was one of the poorest constructed I've seen, something I'd flunk a high school student for doing. Even so, any suggestions for improvement were rejected, IIRC, and I spent a lot of time trying to get him to modify the work (all those classes on psychological research provided me with plenty to say) into something of value as I find the fundamental concept of the influence of the Internet and other new media on LDS culture and belief rather interesting and worth exploring.