In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[rodheadlee]

Do we know Brother Maxwell did not seek revelation from the Lord? Do we know the Lord didn't point him to Sorenson?

[beastie]

Do we know Brother Maxwell did not seek revelation from the Lord? Do we know the Lord didn't point him to Sorenson?

Good point. Maybe he did. But then from whom was Mark E. Peterson getting his inspiration?

[mfbukowski]

The traditional teaching of the LDS church is not only that Moroni deposited the plates in the hill in western NY from which JS obtained the plates, but also that same hill is the hill where the Nephites had their final battle and all but 24 were slain, etc etc. IOW, there is only one Hill Cumorah. Obviously this contradicts the apologists

[mfbukowski]

You are willing to state your opinion on the FARMS-related issue. Perhaps you could also state your opinion on Bro Watson's actions & intentions.

Yes.

His intention was to do his job and send out a form letter to a bishop, which he did perhaps several times a day. Or perhaps he would refer it to his secretary which was I think the case with the Ogden fax.

c. Is the mere fact that a form letter was used sufficient to discredit the content?

The content was fine for a form letter from a secretary to a bishop. What the content of the letter really says is: "This person sent me a letter about this problem. Please take care of it". Do you honestly think that this is the way doctrinal positions are declared in the church? If not, why are you asking?

Is there any point in getting clarification on any point of church teachings from anyone other than the FP/Q12 directly, since then the recipient of the information would still have to show that the clarification has the force of doctrine?

Not sure what you are asking. If you send a letter to the FP asking a doctrinal question, it will be referred to your bishop by a letter like the Watson letter, to be answered by your bishop. That is church policy.

You can write the FP all day, but that is how it will be handled.

[wenglund]

Pity that we cannot get a generally accepted "authority index" attached to a statement at the time it is made.

First of all, let me welcome you to the board and express my appreciation for your thoughtful comments.

Second, to those who actually understand the intent and purpose of the gospel, such an index is entirely unnecessary.

In other words, instead of engaging in the relatively meaningless and counter-productive task of categorizing statements from leaders, or even Church staff, as "doctrine" or "teachings", or whether they were spoken as a "prophet" or as a "man", our focus ought to be on whether, and to what extent, the statements enables us to come to Christ, become like him, and fulfill the four-fold purpose of the Church.

When our minds are focused as they ought to be, that is when we begin to realize just how insipid it is to concern ourselves with a single, 15-year-old footnote, or an older letter and/or fax, or even an obscure intimation in an online scriptural study guide. In fact, we begin to see just how pointless it is to concern ourselves much with whether there was one or two Cumorah's. Clearly, the "Brethren" haven't paid it much mind (as attested to by the dearth of statements from them on the matter), and rightly so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[beastie]

Disagree. There is not a "one Cumorah theory". There is the traditional TEACHING (note that you used that word yourself in the first line) of the church which is epitomized by the wording of the Watson letter, that the BOM Cumorah and the Western NY Cumorah are the same. It is a natural thing to believe. If the GA's had come out and said "We hereby affirm that the one Cumorah theory is true" you might have a case. But you will never find a statement like that.

When GA's stand on the top of the Western NY hill and say things which they say, they are showing that they believe the traditional position, probably without examining all of the elements of that belief. So what? In essence the point is that the plates were deposited, were retrieved and were translated by inspiration. That is all that is important, that is all that is doctrine. It is like the controversy over whether the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is in fact the site of the tomb of Jesus, or if it is the "Garden Tomb" instead. I believe it was President Kimball who made a fairly definitive statement by revelation that the garden tomb was the true spot. Ultimately it doesn't matter at all- what matters is the doctrine of the resurrection. THAT is the doctrine. It's not like President Kimball said "As prophet, I hereby affirm that the church of the HS is NOT the location of the tomb of Jesus"-- he didn't say that.

I think you

[Ceeboo]

The ideas most certainly exclude one another. The One Cumorah and Two Cumorah theories cannot be simultaneously true. The fact that members are free to believe either without risk of church discipline does not mean that the theories do not exclude one another.

Makes sense to the crazy Catholic guy.

Now, back to the hugs !!!!

Peace,

Ceeboo

[beastie]

Makes sense to the crazy Catholic guy.

Now, back to the hugs !!!!

Peace,

Ceeboo

It's nice to know I'm making sense to someone, even a crazy guy!

[Malc]

First of all, let me welcome you to the board and express my appreciation for your thoughtful comments.

Second, to those who actually understand the intent and purpose of the gospel, such an index is entirely unnecessary.

In other words, instead of engaging in the relatively meaningless and counter-productive task of categorizing statements from leaders, or even Church staff, as "doctrine" or "teachings", or whether they were spoken as a "prophet" or as a "man", our focus ought to be on whether, and to what extent, the statements enables us to come to Christ, become like him, and fulfill the four-fold purpose of the Church.

When our minds are focused as they ought to be, that is when we begin to realize just how insipid it is to concern ourselves with a single, 15-year-old footnote, or an older letter and/or fax, or even an obscure intimation in an online scriptural study guide. In fact, we begin to see just how pointless it is to concern ourselves much with whether there was one or two Cumorah's. Clearly, the "Brethren" haven't paid it much mind (as attested to by the dearth of statements from them on the matter), and rightly so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks for the welcome, Wade. You may remember me as malkie from the "other" board - that username was already taken here.

The "index" was a tongue-in-cheek comment - I hope that was clear.

Perhaps those who are still struggling to understand the intent and purpose of the gospel (obviously this category does not include me), or who question or disbelieve the claims of the church (clearly this one does), are interested in such things as you describe as relatively meaningless and counter-productive.

For some, the resolution of questions that go to the credibility of claims rightly affect our relationships with organizations and with people.

[Ceeboo]

It's nice to know I'm making sense to someone, even a crazy guy!

Hey ya beastie,

I have admired much of your contributions on these threads. ( Thanks for sharing them with me/us )

As a non LDS, I simply do not get what all the " fuss " is about in regard to ( MY OPINION, " Thoeries " either way ) in regard to the one vs. two Cumorah.

It seems to me, from my participation with many LDS folks, that either is OK to believe. ( ( My opinion again) This should not hold much weight either way when measured against the CORE/REASONS of your beliefs ).

At any rate, THEY BOTH CAN NOT BE TRUE. ( Whichever camp your in ).

Peace,

Ceeboo

[SlackTime]

Hey ya beastie,

I have admired much of your contributions on these threads. ( Thanks for sharing them with me/us )

As a non LDS, I simply do not get what all the " fuss " is about in regard to ( MY OPINION, " Thoeries " either way ) in regard to the one vs. two Cumorah.

It seems to me, from my participation with many LDS folks, that either is OK to believe. ( ( My opinion again) This should not hold much weight either way when measured against the CORE/REASONS of your beliefs ).

At any rate, THEY BOTH CAN NOT BE TRUE. ( Whichever camp your in ).

Peace,

Ceeboo

The good thing is that either could be true and it would have no effect whatsoever upon a testimony properly grounded.

If in the next ten years we find Mormon's cave filled with ancient documents down in Mesoamerica? GREAT! If we suddenly find through some as yet unimagineable soil processing method confirmation of huge battles around that little tor in New York State, GREAT! Neither is required at all, anybody who rests their faith on such foolishness is guaranteed to have the sand and their house swept away by the winds. All Beastie's pontificating means absolutely nothing. This whole thread is a tempest in a teapot that has no essence and will have no end unless the moderators finally tire and close it.

- SlackTime

[beastie]

The good thing is that either could be true and it would have no effect whatsoever upon a testimony properly grounded.

If in the next ten years we find Mormon's cave filled with ancient documents down in Mesoamerica? GREAT! If we suddenly find through some as yet unimagineable soil processing method confirmation of huge battles around that little tor in New York State, GREAT! Neither is required at all, anybody who rests their faith on such foolishness is guaranteed to have the sand and their house swept away by the winds. All Beastie's pontificating means absolutely nothing. This whole thread is a tempest in a teapot that has no essence and will have no end unless the moderators finally tire and close it.

- SlackTime

I guess all my efforts to explain the significance of this has fallen on deaf ears in your case. I never "pontifcated" that this would be the downfall of Mormonism or of anyone's faith.

[Malc]

...

The content was fine for a form letter from a secretary to a bishop. What the content of the letter really says is: "This person sent me a letter about this problem. Please take care of it". Do you honestly think that this is the way doctrinal positions are declared in the church? If not, why are you asking?

I'm asking because I did think that this was one way that doctrinal positions could be declared (in the sense of being affirmed, not originated), as this seemed to be the point in some of the comments from FARMS, but I see that that horse is ready for the glue factory.

Not sure what you are asking. If you send a letter to the FP asking a doctrinal question, it will be referred to your bishop by a letter like the Watson letter, to be answered by your bishop. That is church policy.

You can write the FP all day, but that is how it will be handled.

Do I understand correctly, then, that my bishop can declare doctrine? and that I can rely on what he says without worrying about whether he is authorised? or perhaps that I should consider the form letter to be his authorisation? Otherwise I don't see much point in the referral to the bishop.

[wenglund]

Perhaps those who are still struggling to understand the intent and purpose of the gospel (obviously this category does not include me), or who question or disbelieve the claims of the church (clearly this one does), are interested in such things as you describe as relatively meaningless and counter-productive.

Exactly. There appears to me to be an inverse relationship between the degree to which wabbling believers and former believers lack rightful mindfulness of the intents and purpose of the restored gospel, and the amount of hightened importance they place on matters that are relatively meaningless and counter-productive in relation to the intents and purpose of the restored gospel.

In other words, the less one grasps what the gospel is really all about, the more likely one's faith will be compromised by things that really ought not matter.

For some, the resolution of questions that go to the credibility of claims rightly affect our relationships with organizations and with people.

Actually, for some, their own credibility is rightly affected by what they tend to misperceive is their relationships with organizations and with people.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

The ideas most certainly exclude one another. The One Cumorah and Two Cumorah theories cannot be simultaneously true. The fact that members are free to believe either without risk of church discipline does not mean that the theories do not exclude one another.

There is no "one Cumorah theory" in the sense of a scholarly theory put forth to be proven or disproven on its logical merits. I am not arguing about the semantics of the difference between "teaching" and "theory". There is the traditional view, and there is the two Cumorah view. And yes, they can be harmonized, and if you read my post, you would see how. Both can be combined into a new view which combines both without logical contradiction. (I am not advocating this view because I am not an expert on any of this) but as I said, if we have angels moving plates, why not have them move the entire hill? Moroni deposits the plates in the hill in central America, the hill containing the plates is moved to Western NY and Joseph removes them from that hill, and the Watson letter becomes correct. The hill where the plates were deposited is the same hill from which Joseph removes them. I am not advocating this view, but it does harmonize the two accounts logically, showing they are not contradictory, and it is as plausible as angels moving the plates in the first place. Logical contradiction is demonstrated by the difference between a proposition "A" and a proposition "not A". If the traditional view is "A" the two Cumorah view is NOT "not A". The two views are therefore not contradictory in any logical sense. I am sure you will make some smart comments about this theory, but go ahead. All I am showing is that the two views are not incompatible logically- there is a possible imaginable scenario which makes them both true, which could not be the case if they were logically contradictory.

Please, let this red herring die. Whether or not the One Cumorah teaching can be called

[Malc]

Exactly. There appears to me to be an inverse relationship between the degree to which wabbling believers and former believers lack rightful mindfulness of the intents and purpose of the restored gospel, and the amount of hightened importance they place on matters that are relatively meaningless and counter-productive in relation to the intents and purpose of the restored gospel.

In other words, the less one grasps what the gospel is really all about, the more likely one's faith will be compromised by things that really ought not matter.

Actually, for some, their own credibility is rightly affected by what they tend to misperceive is their relationships with organizations and with people.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As a wabbling former believer who lacks rightful mindfulness of the intents and purpose of the restored gospel, I thank you for your reply.

[wenglund]

I guess all my efforts to explain the significance of this has fallen on deaf ears in your case.

It is like trying to explain the significance of one verses two-ply toilet paper to the issue of national security. Your lack of success isn't so much a function of it having fallen on deaf ears as it is a function of it having fallen well outside the bounds of pertinance--not that you would ever understand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Do I understand correctly, then, that my bishop can declare doctrine? and that I can rely on what he says without worrying about whether he is authorised? or perhaps that I should consider the form letter to be his authorisation? Otherwise I don't see much point in the referral to the bishop.

The first presidency receives a huge volume of mail from members asking doctrinal questions. There is no conceivable way that every single question could be handled adequately. The procedure is for the FP to notify the bishop that the member has a doctrinal question and the bishop's job is to handle the situation to the best of his ability. That's all there is to it. How would you handle the problem of receiving hundreds of letters with detailed doctrinal questions? Have the GA's sitting at their computers all day answering letters? You have very little understanding of how the church works.

Of course the bishop does not make doctrine, he serves his flock and acts as a spiritual adviser among other things like being chief cook and bottle washer and chair- putter- awayer.

[Malc]

The first presidency receives a huge volume of mail from members asking doctrinal questions. There is no conceivable way that every single question could be handled adequately. The procedure is for the FP to notify the bishop that the member has a doctrinal question and the bishop's job is to handle the situation to the best of his ability. That's all there is to it. How would you handle the problem of receiving hundreds of letters with detailed doctrinal questions? Have the GA's sitting at their computers all day answering letters? You have very little understanding of how the church works.

I may have very little understanding of how the church works, but I'm not sure how you got from my question to the idea that I would have the GAs sitting at their computers all day answering letters. That's not my problem to solve, I'm glad to say.

Of course the bishop does not make doctrine, he serves his flock and acts as a spiritual adviser among other things like being chief cook and bottle washer and chair- putter- awayer.

Again, I simply wanted to clarify what your previous answer seemed to imply.

I suspect that I may have worn out my welcome on this thread, at least on these particular points, so I will refrain from any further comment.

Thanks once again for your patience with me. If it's any comfort to you at all, you're in good company - my wife gets fed up with my questions as well.

[SlackTime]

It is like trying to explain the significance of one verses two-ply toilet paper to the issue of national security. Your lack of success isn't so much a function of it having fallen on deaf ears as it is a function of it having fallen well outside the bounds of pertinance--not that you would ever understand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Rather an interesting metaphor Wade, but well said. Book of Mormon geography is an interesting diversion, right up there with the exact location of Sodom, and whether Ur of Chaldees in the Book of Abraham was the Ur that is now on the map or some other location. Interesting, yes, consequential, no. The Book of Mormon is revealed truth, but it can still be misinterpreted by the reader. If you read it for spiritual insight, there is little opportunity to go wrong. If you start making geographic claims, then it takes some real effort to get it even remotely right. Some scholars managed to do a fair job and I find their theories interesting, but they add nothing to my testimony. That is already well established through the Holy Spirit and is far better evidenced than anything the archeologists can dig up, including a "Moroni slept here" stellae glyph and a "Welcome to Bountiful" road marker stellae.

If someday in the future they lock all this down with archeological data, my testimony will be no stronger then than it is now. And if the location wanders all over the continent and they finally discover that it all took place in Alaska, or Chili, oh well!

- SlackTime

[wenglund]

Thanks once again for your patience with me. If it's any comfort to you at all, you're in good company - my wife gets fed up with my questions as well.

I appreciate you asking your questions since it provides an opportunity for each of us to learn and grow--and this even if the reasonable answer to your question may simply be that the question lacks merit or may be unworthy of concern.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[beastie]

For those of you who declare BoM geography to be nothing but an insignificant diversion, what is your reaction to members who view it as inspired myth, rather than actual history?

[beastie]

I appreciate you asking your questions since it provides an opportunity for each of us to learn and grow--and this even if the reasonable answer to your question may simply be that the question lacks merit or may be unworthy of concern.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Always one to grasp the teaching moment and build bridges, eh, Wade?

[mercyngrace]

So, for members who do think that the historicity of the BoM is an important question, the fact that Brother Maxwell

[SlackTime]

For those of you who declare BoM geography to be nothing but an insignificant diversion, what is your reaction to members who view it as inspired myth, rather than actual history?

I believe the Book of Mormon to be a spiritual account of a real people, who existed in a real place, and lived, and died. Moroni was a real person and he was sent back as a messenger from God to show Joseph Smith where the plates were deposited.

I believe that trying to see the Book of Mormon as an inspired myth is a non-starter, for then the "myth" was propagated by an angel of God who pretended to be Moroni, a mythic character? Doesn't sound like something I'd expect a messenger from God to do. But maybe it works for some people. *shrug*

- SlackTime