In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[Daniel Peterson]

From the Compound, just today:

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course not. But when Mormons of the 1880s opened the Holy Word of God,

containing the fulness of the everlasting gospel, they probably trusted

Apostle Pratt's annotations as being at least inspired, if not revelatory.

To now be told that God allowed the Book of Mormon of that era to be published,

with fundamentally incorrect statements about the Nephites, can only make us all

wonder whether modern editions of the Standard Works might not include even

greater mis-statements -- in the text proper, or in the critical apparatus.

At least a few people must join the LDS Church with the expectation of its

being the one true church, administered by prophets and apostles, who provide

editions of fully reliable latter day scriptures.

Remove Pratt's notes one day -- remove the Lectures on Faith some other day --

one can only wonder where it all ends. What cannot be removed or changed?

UD

Or, viewed another way, what stands the test of time, what remains when the chaff has been blown away, what is sustained from generation to generation by the prophets and apostles counseling together as a unified body, can be relied upon as the revealed word of God.

We have seen a illustration of this in the matter now being discussed. The First Presidency's secretary gave what he no doubt thought was the definitive and authoritative position. As it turned out, however, his assumption was sustained neither by revealed doctrine nor holy writ. A correction was in order. As a result, we are now blessed with an enlightened understanding regarding what may not be assumed with regard to the non-essential matter of specific Book of Mormon geography.

[Uncle Dale]

...what remains when the chaff has been blown away

...

Refresh my memory again -- I'm a neophyte when it comes to LDS practices.

Do not your quorums fast, pray and seek a firm witness of the Holy Spirit,

before sustaining any substantial additions or deletions to the Standard Works?

If not, I've once again mistakenly projected our own, quaint Kirtland era

practices upon our brethren of Deseret.

UD

[Scott Lloyd]

Refresh my memory again -- I'm a neophyte when it comes to LDS practices.

Do not your quorums fast, pray and seek a firm witness of the Holy Spirit,

before sustaining any substantial additions or deletions to the Standard Works?

If not, I've once again mistakenly projected our own, quaint Kirtland era

practices upon our brethren of Deseret.

UD

Refresh my memory: Was Lectures on Faith regarded as canonical? It's not my understanding that it was.

Clarification: When I referred to "chaff," I was speaking in general terms and wasn't referring specifically to Lectures on Faith. As far as I know, that has never been repudiated by the Church, though it is no longer bundled with the scriptures.

[LeSellers]

Do not your quorums fast, pray and seek a firm witness of the Holy Spirit, before sustaining any substantial additions or deletions to the Standard Works?

We don't do "deletions" (with, perhaps, an exception for the "Lectures on Faith").

Otherwise, it is at least that complex. For, as you probably know, we also present them to the Church for sustaining.

Lehi

[Hamba Tuhan]

I sincerely hope this helps those who have failed to understand why critics find this episode significant. Certainly no one has to agree with these points, but hopefully, after the points have been explained quite explicitly, no one can continue to complain that critics have failed to explain why they find it significant.

Thanks, beastie, for sharing your perspective. For the life of me, I honestly couldn't see the big deal on my own, a result, I suspect, of not sharing the great majority of your initial premises. In such a situation, people inevitably end up talking past each other, each side thinking it knows what the other considers the whole point of the affair. Unsuprisingly, I disagree with the implications your raised--again a consequence of unshared premises--but at least I can now see WHY critics of the Church actually find all of this meaningful whilst I do not: To them, it helps in their attacks on the claim of divine revelation.

[Uncle Dale]

Refresh my memory: Was Lectures on Faith regarded as canonical?

It's not my understanding that it was.

The title page of the 1835 does not say "Covenants and some doubtful doctrines

of the Church of Latter Day Saints... carefully selected from the Revelations

of God, and compiled by Joseph Smith, Junior...."

For years we accepted the "doctrine" as having been compiled from revelation --

if not word-for-word, then at least at the same level of trustworthiness that

the LDS later gave to the Joseph Smith first vision account in their PGP.

Of course Smith overlooked some typographical mistakes, here and there -- so nobody

was saying that the published texts might not contain a few errors of men.

But the basic idea inherent in voting to sustain the standard works, or any

volume thereof, was that the entire matter was placed before God for confirmation

that the texts comported precisely with Divine revelation.

So far as I can tell, the 1835 vote in Kirtland was unanimous -- either hundreds

of upper level priesthood officials were deluded, or the Lectures on Faith met

with God's implicit approval.

I'm open to the possibility of that having been delusion, of course...

UD

[Uncle Dale]

We don't do "deletions"...

White and delightsome...

???

A word or two seems to have been deleted in this latest LDS edition.

And, compared to my DVD of the "Printer's Manuscript," hundreds of deletions.

???

UD

[Scott Lloyd]

White and delightsome...

???

This was changed to "pure and delightsome" in the 1840 edition. The current LDS edition of the scriptures reflects that change, which was probably made by the Prophet himself.

[wenglund]

From the Compound, just today:

[Uncle Dale]

This was changed to "pure and delightsome" in the 1840 edition.

The current LDS edition of the scriptures reflects that change,

which was probably made by the Prophet himself.

Yes, we all know about that. I suppose that the 1840 text was indeed voted upon

and sustained by the quorums, as reflecting God's will. Odd then, that subsequent

editions reverted back to the prior scribal/printer's error (?) --

But that was not my point. My point is that there have been "deletions," and

we all know that.

But that is a nested item is a larger point I was trying to make -- which was:

that for decades Mormons had an edition of the BoM which gave information about

the Nephites in its annotations.

I merely wanted to know if the LDS quorums asked for God's guidance before

they studied that new edition, and voted to sustain those changes?

If not, then my entire point is lost, and it is not God's fault that the

LDS BoM was published and distributed with such seemingly authoritative

(but now challenged by all but Meldrumites) apostolic counsel in it.

UD

[Hamba Tuhan]

Of course not. But when Mormons of the 1880s opened the Holy Word of God, containing the fulness of the everlasting gospel, they probably trusted Apostle Pratt's annotations as being at least inspired, if not revelatory.

But that is a nested item is a larger point I was trying to make -- which was: that for decades Mormons had an edition of the BoM which gave information about the Nephites in its annotations.

I merely wanted to know if the LDS quorums asked for God's guidance before they studied that new edition, and voted to sustain those changes?

If not, then my entire point is lost....

UD, I don't know for sure, but I would be greatly surprised if anyone voted to sustain Elder Pratt's nineteenth-century Book of Mormon annotations--especially as something other than annotations. They were just that: notes added to a text to provide outside commentary. I could be also be wrong, but I suspect many Mormons of the 1880s viewed Pratt's annotations in roughly the same way I view the footnotes in my current edition of the Book of Mormon.

[beastie]

I

[beastie]

One more thing -

BTW, it

[Uncle Dale]

...the same way I view the footnotes in my current edition of the Book of Mormon.

If those modern footnotes were personally signed by a member of The Twelve,

would you place any higher reliance upon them, than if they were inserted

by a committee of low-level functionaries?

And what if that Apostle had spent countless hours with Joseph Smith, hearing

teachings in great detail, which our history books summarize in a sentence?

Would you then place even greater reliance upon his apostolic counsel?

I'm not saying such reliance might not be wrong -- even harmful. But can

you see how entire generations might grow up, treasuring that counsel,

and underlining it in their copies of the Book of Mormon?

No wonder entire generations grew up, believing that there had been

Nephites once living in the Great Lakes area. No wonder that prophets

and apostles have spoken as though they had no disagreement with those

Pratt elucidations upon the Nephites.

Who was the last LDS apostle who felt a spiritual confirmation of their truth?

UD

[Daniel Peterson]

Really. So any member of the church could pick up the phone and directly speak to the executive secretary of the First Presidency?

I seriously doubt it.

Well I've never done that.

[Scott Lloyd]

The fact is that, no matter how you try to minimize it, the church still thinks enough of it to place it on their official website as a scripture study guide. That gives it quite a bit of authority, if you ask me.

We

[beastie]

Well I've never done that.

Well, according to what you said on Z, someone from FARMS did just that.

The wheels turn slowly. I understand that curriculum revisions, especially important ones like revisions to the scriptures, involve a lengthy process involving many drafts, reviews, committee sessions, etc. You may not like it, but your disapproval does not change the fact that Web edition conforms to what is in print, not the other way around.

I don't approve or disapprove at all. I'm making a very simple assertion, which is that 007 is correct in his assertion that there is an abundance of evidence showing that the church has taught that Hill Cumorah in NY is the same hill where the final battles were held, and there is very little evidence showing that the church has taught the 2 Cumorah theory. Are you seriously arguing against that, or do you just argue for the sake of argument?

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't approve or disapprove at all. I'm making a very simple assertion, which is that 007 is correct in his assertion that there is an abundance of evidence showing that the church has taught that Hill Cumorah in NY is the same hill where the final battles were held, and there is very little evidence showing that the church has taught the 2 Cumorah theory. Are you seriously arguing against that, or do you just argue for the sake of argument?

I don't deny that it was a widely held assumption that the hill in New York is the hill mentioned in the Book of Mormon. I distinguish, however, between assumption, however widely held, and what can be sustained by revelation. The fact that Brother Watson was apparently directed to revise his assertion in his earlier letter says a great deal to me.

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, according to what you said on Z, someone from FARMS did just that.

Somebody may have. I don't recall saying that. Perhaps Brent Hall. I seem to recall that Professor Hamblin wrote. Calling to represent an organization belonging to the Church, with regard to something about to be published by that organization, might embolden one, and might get one attention.

As a private individual, though, I doubt that Brent Hall would ever call and demand to speak to the secretary of the First Presidency. I've never done it, and, unless things change big time in ways that I don't foresee, never will.

there is very little evidence showing that the church has taught the 2 Cumorah theory.

I agree with this. I don't think the Church ever has, or ever should, teach the two-Cumorah theory.

[beastie]

Somebody may have. I don't recall saying that. Perhaps Brent Hall. I seem to recall that Professor Hamblin wrote. Calling to represent an organization belonging to the Church, with regard to something about to be published by that organization, might embolden one, and might get one attention.

As a private individual, though, I doubt that Brent Hall would ever call and demand to speak to the secretary of the First Presidency. I've never done it, and, unless things change big time in ways that I don't foresee, never will.

See Brent's previous post quoting you saying someone called.

I agree with this. I don't think the Church ever has, or ever should, teach the two-Cumorah theory.

Why? The church has taught the NY Cumorah = final battle Cumorah, why shouldn't it teach the two Cumorah theory?

[Scott Lloyd]

Why? The church has taught the NY Cumorah = final battle Cumorah, why shouldn't it teach the two Cumorah theory?

Absent any definitive revelation on the matter, the Church should hold the position it does now, which amounts to no position on specific geographic locales for Book of Mormon events.

[Daniel Peterson]

See Brent's previous post quoting you saying someone called.

Now, if you want something on which my memory truly is "hazy," that would be it. I have no recollection whatsoever of how the initial contact was made with the Office of the First Presidency. Very probably because I wasn't involved at all in it.

Why? The church has taught the NY Cumorah = final battle Cumorah, why shouldn't it teach the two Cumorah theory?

That the final battles took place in New York was universally presumed in the Church, by both leaders and ordinary members, until relatively recently. It was, in my judgment, a faulty and largely unexamined assumption.

I simply don't believe that the Church should pronounce on this or that geographical theory, pending actual revelation on the subject. Besides which, there are far more important subjects for the Church to address.

[Hamba Tuhan]

If those modern footnotes were personally signed by a member of The Twelve, would you place any higher reliance upon them, than if they were inserted by a committee of low-level functionaries?

I remember being taught very young that Elder McConkie (of whom I have no personal memory) had written the synopses at the beginning of the chapters in the current LDS edition of the scriptures. Until now, I have never felt that this gave them any higher reliability than if they had been composed by 'a committee of low-level functionaries.' I realise that may be just me, but it gives some insight into how things work in my head and how I was raised.

And what if that Apostle had spent countless hours with Joseph Smith, hearing teachings in great detail, which our history books summarize in a sentence? Would you then place even greater reliance upon his apostolic counsel?

It's impossible to answer hypothetical questions with 100% reliability, but I suspect I may not have cared much. I know it's a very different thing, but we currently have serving in our stake the grandson of an apostle. He was at dinner a couple of weeks ago, and one of my housemates was pestering him for the 'inside scoop.' I found it wrongheaded and offensive and said so. As a matter of principle, I don't think closeness to prophets and apostles confers any valuable insider knowledge.

I'm not saying such reliance might not be wrong -- even harmful. But can you see how entire generations might grow up, treasuring that counsel, and underlining it in their copies of the Book of Mormon?

Yes, I can absolutely see this, and it makes sense. I can also see how others would react differently.

Who was the last LDS apostle who felt a spiritual confirmation of their truth?

I have never once heard an LDS apostle express that he had received any spiritual confirmation whatsoever concerning any specific point of Book of Mormon geography. Maybe I need to get out more?

[Uncle Dale]

..

I have never once heard an LDS apostle express that he had received any spiritual confirmation whatsoever concerning any specific point of Book of Mormon geography. Maybe I need to get out more?

Either that or get out the 1880s and 1890s copies of the Deseret News in

which LDS notables periodically wrote letters back to "The Valley" of their

missionary tours and other adventures in upstate New York.

Read enough of those and you'll eventually happen upon an apostle or two,

if I recall correctly. Somebody ought to collect those postcard testimonies

into a book with a pretty dust-jacket: "Cumorah Commemorations," or such...

But it means nothing to me. And, as far as being deeply impressed with

apostolic counsel, I'd probably be even less observant than yourself:

(unless it were Jedediah M. Grant, with my excommunication papers in-hand).

Cheers,

UD

.