In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[beastie]

I've been following this discussion for the past several days and this sentence is the best summary of the issue at hand. Unfortunately for critics, the conflict as it is here presented doesn't exist in Mormonism.

Unlike some brands of Evangelicals, in our theology, we accept that God acts through other human beings just as often or perhaps moreso than He acts through unexplainable and miraculous events. We pray in faith over our sick but that doesn't preclude us from seeking medical attention, for example. We seek inspiration as we issue calls to service but we still speak to the individuals involved to make sure that there are not personal conflicts or limitations that might interfere with their ability to serve.

LDS firmly believe in finding truth through the "study it out" method and then going to God for confirmation. Even the First Vision, the impetus for the restoration of the modern church, occurred in direct response to Joseph's study of the Bible and the numerous Christian sects of his day. Unlike the Lady of Lourdes, God the Father and Jesus Christ did not just appear and start revealing answers to unasked questions.

In fact, many, if not most, of the revelations received by Joseph Smith were responses to queries about material he studied or read and did not understand. Even the brother of Jared whose account is contained within the Book of Mormon was required to put forth his own efforts before the Lord reached out His hand.

The notion that seeking secular input invalidates revelation is antithetical to Mormonism as we are much more inclined to believe that the hard work of study is innately guided by an invisible hand - not always of course, but often, and when it serves God's purposes.

So... that a non-salvational issue would be floated past one with expertise in that area of study not only doesn't conflict with our doctrine, it fits in perfectly well, whether or not that is what actually happened in the one v. two Cumorah debate.

As I

[mercyngrace]

As I

[beastie]

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.

In my experience, many believers have varying amounts of tolerance for suggestions of supernatural intervention. While LDS believers are clearly comfortable with, for example, Joseph Smith translating the BoM through the power of God, the comfort level begins to decrease for some mormons when they discover he did so by using the same stone he used to use for

[beastie]

I think you are missing the point. It's our doctrine to study matters out before seeking revelation. D&C 9:6-9

If a member has a problem with this approach then he does not know the doctrine of the church and can hardly be called LDS. This is a fundamental tenet and is taught to investigator before baptism. The verses I refer to are taught from the most basic children's classes and those same verses are memorized by countless teenagers. This is not some obscure idea on the fringe of Mormonism.

Any LDS who can be called such knows that inspiration is "1% revelation and 99% perspiration."

Are you saying that a member who is troubled by prophets seeking answers from scholars, rather than seeking revelation from God, can't be considered true LDS?

My goodness. I would never have suspected that Elder Packer wasn't a real Mormon. You learn something new every day.

[mercyngrace]

Are you saying that a member who is troubled by prophets seeking answers from scholars, rather than seeking revelation from God, can't be considered true LDS?

My goodness. I would never have suspected that Elder Packer wasn't a real Mormon. You learn something new every day.

Nope. Because Elder Packer understands that studying a matter out and then seeking revelation is not the same as allowing intellectualism to supercede revelation. He condemns one of those course. Not the other.

[beastie]

Nope. Because Elder Packer understands that studying a matter out and then seeking revelation is not the same as allowing intellectualism to supercede revelation. He condemns one of those course. Not the other.

But that's the whole point. The prophets, at least on this issue, appear to seek out intellectualism without bothering to follow up with revelation.

This is an article my father mailed to me after I lost faith in the church.

Dallin Oaks

Alternate Voices

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=369027cd3f37b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

My remarks will refer to those voices that speak of God, of his commandments, and of the doctrines, ordinances, and practices of his church. Some of those who speak on these subjects have been called and given divine authority to do so. Others, whom I choose to call alternate voices, speak on these subjects without calling or authority.

In the five years since I was called as a General Authority, I have seen many instances where Church leaders and members have been troubled by things said by these alternate voices. I am convinced that some members are confused about the Church

[beastie]

BTW, this is how some folk mormons interpreted Elder Oaks' talk:

In 1979, Sunstone began sponsoring an annual symposium in Salt Lake City, which is now a four-day event with approximately 100 different sessions generally held the second week of August. Since the 1980s, Sunstone has also held regular regional symposia in Washington, D.C., California, Seattle, Chicago, Dallas, and Boston.

While early magazine issues and symposia included heavy participation from a full range of perspectives, circumstances and events in the late 1980s and early 1990s damaged Sunstone's reputation and hurt subscribership.[1] These events included a 1989 address given by Elder Dallin H. Oaks, an LDS apostle, warning of "Alternate Voices"[2] and a November 1991 "Statement on Symposia" issued by the church's First Presidency; although, Sunstone was never mentioned in either case. Because of Sunstone's position as a visible symbol of independent thought within Mormonism, however, these communications led to a decline in participation in Sunstone fora by many conservative and moderate voices. This trend culminated after six individuals were disciplined by the Church in September, 1993, after which the potential costs of writing for the magazine and speaking at its symposia were too high. With a lack of participation from moderate and conservative voices, Sunstone experienced an unbalancing of many presentations toward liberal causes and points of view.[3][4][5]

With the passage of time and under new leadership, the Sunstone Education Foundation has begun to recover much of its former status as a vehicle for frank, honest discussion in Mormonism, with increased balance and a concerted effort to be welcoming to all voices.[6][7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunstone_Magazine

[mercyngrace]

But that's the whole point. The prophets, at least on this issue, appear to seek out intellectualism without bothering to follow up with revelation.

This is an article my father mailed to me after I lost faith in the church...

"appear to" is the key phrase in that first sentence.

Are we reading the same article? Because the one you posted distinguishes between various alternative voices and includes this statement:

Some alternate voices are those of well-motivated men and women who are merely trying to serve their brothers and sisters and further the cause of Zion. Their efforts fit within the Lord

[Hamba Tuhan]

But I have presented examples of other LDS who have some discomfort with the idea of prophets not being able to answer questions that directly relate to the faith, and deferring the questions to scholars.

It isn't as if we believe that the minute a man is called to the Q12 he gets a needle in the back of his head and Morpheus says "Boot up the Secrets of the Universe disk. Neo here needs a primer on geophysics and Nephite metallurgy."

I have harboured for some time the suspicion that a sizable number of true apostates are those who desperately needed prophets to be some kind of infallible supermen with the correct answers to absolutely every conceivable question on demand. In this, I am reminded of a Twilight Zone episode I saw a few years ago wherein a woman met a 'Rasta' man in a coffee shop who warned her not to get on an airplane. She thought him crazy but, in the end, didn't board the plane. Then it crashed. Thereafter, she made daily trips to the coffee shop to consult this soothsayer on more issues. Over time, her visits became more frequent, and the questions she asked became more and more trivial. Soon, she couldn't make a single decision on her own without consulting the 'Rasta' man. One day, he wasn't in the coffee shop, and she completely fell apart. In panic and desperation, she ran out into the street and started calling for him. Finally she saw him across the street and motioned for him to come to her. As he crossed the street, though, he was struck by a car and died. For some reason, I can't remember what the woman did next, but I think she herself ran into traffic. At the least, she could no longer face life without the ability to have an authoritative answer to her every question.

I could be wrong, but I wonder if the outcome is similar for some people when they come to realise that Joseph Smith himself, for example, had no idea exactly where the events in the Book of Mormon took place and so allowed his understanding on this subject to shift over his lifetime and that the current prophets and apostles likewise do not have the answers to these questions--which definitely 'directly relate to the faith' without being part of the faith per se.

[beastie]

"appear to" is the key phrase in that first sentence.Are we reading the same article? Because the one you posted distinguishes between various alternative voices and includes this statement:If a church leader is inspired to study out a matter with the aid and counsel of one of these alternate voices, would that nullify the revelatory process? Or would it be a testament to his inspiration in knowing which alternate voices were those of righteous men, anxiously engaged?"IMO, On this matter, there are no folk mormons, beastie. Study and learning is a great basis for revelation but never a substitute for it. Those alternate voices that focus on intellectualism in the absence of spirituality are properly warned against. If some LDS felt Elder Oak's talk was a direct reference to Sunstone, that is personal and not germaine to the broader issue.edited repeatedly because I am on the phone with my brother and can't divide my attention well...aaugh!

Yes, we

[Zakuska]

This is a strawman argument. I

[beastie]

I think you are missing the point. It's our doctrine to study matters out before seeking revelation. D&C 9:6-9

If a member has a problem with this approach then he does not know the doctrine of the church and can hardly be called LDS. This is a fundamental tenet and is taught to investigator before baptism. The verses I refer to are taught from the most basic children's classes and those same verses are memorized by countless teenagers. This is not some obscure idea on the fringe of Mormonism.

Any LDS who can be called such knows that inspiration is "1% revelation and 99% perspiration."

edited to add: Yes. I know I am rewriting Edison ;-) My point is that the answers we receive are proportionate to the effort we are willing to expend to get them. Prophets and apostles are supposed to be subject matter experts on Christ and the atonement only. We do not expect them to have studied every aspect of apologia or to have received revelation about every topic under the sun. Seeking input on non-salvational issues is reasonable and expected. If you've read any General Conference talks, you may have noted how many times church leaders quote from non-canonical sources. They learn and receive revelation just as we all do and they seek out of the best books available (another basic doctrine) whether or not those texts are religious in nature or divine in origin. It isn't as if we believe that the minute a man is called to the Q12 he gets a needle in the back of his head and Morpheus says "Boot up the Secrets of the Universe disk. Neo here needs a primer on geophysics and Nephite metallurgy." LOL!

Oh, I forgot one additional point to this. Part of the problem is that the scholars just can

[Hamba Tuhan]

We

[Hamba Tuhan]

Oh, I forgot one additional point to this. Part of the problem is that the scholars just can

[beastie]

And yet Isaiah saw this "mundane" item as something of great importance.

Isaiah 3

12

[beastie]

Good point. Obviously 'the brethren' should have produced a revelation or two on demand. It becomes really frustrating, hey, when either they or God refuses to comply.

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

[Scott Lloyd]

Something new! Multiquote works for even multiple threads (see above where I clicked on your link, "multiquote" Scott's OP and then MQed your post as well. cool

Anyway to substance:

I think the final statement is important in judging Scott's comments: I would like his clarifications on whether or not he thinks this dichotomy is valid now or not ...

I'm going to say no.

And I will add that I wasn't really in earnest when I suggested it to begin with. It was by way of expressing my opinion that clinging to non-essential, non-authoritative assumptions -- folk doctrine, if you will -- does not amount to orthodoxy, no matter how traditional or longstanding those assumptions may be.

What does constitute orthodoxy? Holding with the official, authoritative, institutional positions of the Church, including recognizing when Church does not taken a position one way or the other on this or that matter, whatever it might be.

... and a bit more clarification on who he sees as "folk mormon"

I agree with you that the concept is unworkable, though there are some Church members who do hold, and even espouse, one or more folk doctrines as I have defined them above. I don't believe there are "folk Mormons," as such, any more than I believe there are "chapel Mormons."

... and if he defines them in the same way you have presented them in this thread.

I think this is another instance of beastie taking something I have said out of context and hyperventilating over it.

PS: I think it's unworkable myself for a variety of reasons, can't remember if I listed them in that thread or not though.

I agree. And I'm not going to defend what I was never really serious about to begin with, except to say that what I suggested in that thread has at least as much viability as Dr. Shades's infamous Chapel/Internet Mormon dichotomy, which is none at all.

I notice that folks here have pretty much given that thread of mine about as much attention as it deserves. On the other hand, the rabble over at the other board have seized upon it like teen-age girls following the latest fad. DCP's malevolent stalker has pronounced it proof of my "meltdown," drawing guffaws and cackles from his circle of groupies.

At the heart of it all is something I mentioned earlier, that hostile critics are bothered when they find their arguments cut off at the knees by the fact that what they are using as a weapon to beat up the Church with is not an authoritative teaching anyway. So they invent fanciful designations such as the chapel/Internet to try to breathe new life into their attacks.

[beastie]

Indeed. And on this point prophets from Joseph Smith until the present day have made clear and bold declarations based--unsurprisingly but importantly!--on revelation: The Book of Mormon is the product of ancient prophets who really existed and who recorded their understanding of actual events. Which is, if I've read you correctly, what we're supposed to expect.

Exactly. This is why questions relating to the historicity of the BoM are not insignificant or irrelevant. IMO.

I understand that not all believers will agree with this point. That's ok. As I've said many times, my purpose is to explain why some people do think this question is significant.

[beastie]

I'm going to say no.

And I will add that I wasn't really in earnest when I suggested it to begin with. It was by way of expressing my opinion that clinging to non-essential, non-authoritative assumptions -- folk doctrine, if you will -- does not amount to orthodoxy, no matter how traditional or longstanding those assumptions may be.

What does constitute orthodoxy? Holding with the official, authoritative, institutional positions of the Church, including recognizing when Church does not taken a position one way or the other on this or that matter, whatever it might be.

I agree with you that the concept is unworkable, though there are some Church members who do hold, and even espouse, one or more folk doctrines as I have defined them above. I don't believe there are "folk Mormons," as such, any more than I believe there are "chapel Mormons."

I think this is another instance of beastie taking something I have said out of context and hyperventilating over it.

I agree. And I'm not going to defend what I was never really serious about to begin with, except to say that what I suggested in that thread has at least at least as much viability as Dr. Shades's infamous Chapel/Internet Mormon dichotomy, which is none at all.

I notice that folks here have pretty much given that thread of mine about as much attention as it deserves. On the other hand, the rabble over at the other board have seized upon it like teen-age girls following the latest fad. DCP's malevolent stalker has pronounced it proof of my "meltdown," drawing guffaws and cackles from his circle of groupies.

At the heart of it all is something I mentioned earlier, that hostile critics are bothered when they find their arguments cut off at the knees by the fact that what they are using as a weapon to beat up the Church with is not an authoritative teaching anyway. So they invent fanciful designations such as the chapel/Internet to try to breathe new life into their attacks.

Scott,

You can't blame Shades for this. I don't remember his description of chapel mormons containing any of the pejorative adjectives you included. That pejorative description came from one place - your own mind.

I don't know how I can be accused of taking it out of context when I repeatedly provided the context, btw.

[Zakuska]

Well, if we're going to use the OT as our guide, let's not stop there"

Deut. 21:18-21

18

[beastie]

Lets go a little further...

Ex. 21: 6

6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Deut. 15: 17

17 Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.

Earings were a sign of being owned by someone else. Yet bra-burners continue using them to this very day? Things that make you go huh??!

"bra burners???"

Zak, you are one thing that always makes me go "HUH".

[Zakuska]

"bra burners???"

Zak, you are one thing that always makes me go "HUH".

Yes Bra-Burners... aka Womens rights advocates.

All women everywhere should remove their earrings and nose rings and belly jewels because they are signs of being Owned.

[mercyngrace]

Yes, we

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,

You can't blame Shades for this. I don't remember his description of chapel mormons containing any of the pejorative adjectives you included. That pejorative description came from one place - your own mind.

I don't know how I can be accused of taking it out of context when I repeatedly provided the context, btw.

Which pejorative adjectives, and to whom in particular were they applied?

[mercyngrace]

Oh, I forgot one additional point to this. Part of the problem is that the scholars just can