In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[Uncle Dale]

...After reading Welch's work, it should be evident that the problem was

Roberts' simplistic and immature reading.

...

This then is the apologists' role at the end of the first decade

of this new century: To point out the "simplistic and immature"

communications of deceased General Authorities?

If so, then attacking Roberts' "immaturity" can be a toe-in-the-water

attempt to see how well this approach might work. After all, Roberts

was not articulating the traditional LDS party line, and he is thus

more susceptible to "immaturity" criticism than Dr. Talmadge, et al.

If this attack strategy is successful, for Seventies, then it

can be implemented against Apostles, perhaps. Even against

Prophets; if their "simplistic and immature" communications

begin to assert that Adam is our God, or that the Holy Ghost

has a celestialized body of flesh and bone.

"Simplistic and immature," eh?

I think that this strategy reaches a terminal point with Roberts.

Apologists who are not themselves General Authorities, had better

be very careful, in applying this approach to members of The Twelve.

UD

[mfbukowski]

ANOTHER GREAT contibution on the boards from the Bishop !!!!!!!

If I didn't know you better mfb , I would have thought that was another " off topic ", disrespectful post intended at mocking what many of us hold as very precious indeed.

Peace,

Ceeboo

That was not my intention. I did not mean any disrespect, I was stating an opinion about causes for people leaving churches- not anything against that particular doctrine.

If it offended you, I genuinely apologize. I was citing it as an example of a doctrine with which many could possibly have a problem, just as many may have a problem with Book of Mormon issues.

[mfbukowski]

Oh, I think that the jist of this thread WILL INDEED affect many people, eventually.

Not a publication of the exact sentiments and arguments presented here, but the greater

issues -- such as how much we can trust authorities like Apostle Talmage, and others

who have been ordained as prophets, seers, revelators and translators in a church

reportedly overseen by Jesus Christ's personal guidance.

If Talmadge was wrong about the location of the Book of Mormon's Hill Cumorah,

then WHAT ELSE might he have been wrong about? And why did Jesus Christ allow him

to be wrong about so important a point as the House of Joseph in ancient America?

In 1830, by Divine revelation, four missionaries were sent out to preach to

the Lamanites -- to scout out the location for the Temple of the Lord, in the

midst of those Lamanites (or according to the changed text, upon their borders).

If Dr. Talmadge and others have been wrong in telling us where the descendants

of Lehi were located (and where they might have been preached to in 1830), then many

LDS members, and potential converts, will ask WHAT CAN WE TRUST as doctrine and

counsel from The Lord's Anointed?

This is not the sort of controversy that extends the stakes of Zion and increases

her membership. It is the sort of controversy that destroyed the Reorganized LDS.

If "It is a waste of time," to discuss such things, then Bro. Meldrum,

Phyllis Olive, Delbert Curtis and others of the same sort will continue to

make a substantial impact upon the general membership -- precisely by quoting

the apostolic counsel of Authorities such as Apostle Talmadge.

Ignore this shift in the latter day winds at your own peril.

UD

.

As I have posted, there are points of view which would cause both Talmadge's position and the Two Cumorah theory to be compatible.

If you can't see that possibility, I don't know what to say.

The alteration of a paradigm to include data that appears conflicting into a single world view has been around at least since Copernicus and Galileo upset the Ptolemaic world view, and is a continuing process in both science and religion.

[Ceeboo]

That was not my intention. I did not mean any disrespect, I was stating an opinion about causes for people leaving churches- not anything against that particular doctrine.

If it offended you, I genuinely apologize. I was citing it as an example of a doctrine with which many could possibly have a problem, just as many may have a problem with Book of Mormon issues.

More than fair ( I Genuinely accept the apology, thanks for offering it ).

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Uncle Dale]

As I have posted, there are points of view which would cause both Talmadge's position

and the Two Cumorah theory to be compatible.

...

You miss my point.

Either top level General Authorities ARE the authorities,

or else you folks are going to end up on the same course

that I saw the RLDS take -- one in which the counsel of

the leaders was no longer absolute doctrine, and a significant

number of members began to trust lower level voices to

fill the vacancy left by the leaders' silence/ambiguity.

If you allow the conclusions of low level apologists to

stand equal in value to the counsel of those ordained as

prophets, seers, revelators and translators, you'll soon

be on a slippery slope headed for confusion and dangerous

disorder.

But, who am I to warn you?

Continue on, just as you are -- the results will be more

effective (from my perspective), than if you actually

took the time to listen to what I've told you.

And I suppose that's OK with me.

UD

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps there are analogies with Catholicism, perhaps not. We are a new church, they are old and have had many "theologians" throughout the centuries debating virtually everything which was possibly debatable, with the Pope re-interpreting as necessary.

Is this a good analogy?

I suppose this could be another thread, but at this point, does it matter?

[beastie]

As I have posted, there are points of view which would cause both Talmadge's position and the Two Cumorah theory to be compatible.

If you can't see that possibility, I don't know what to say.

The alteration of a paradigm to include data that appears conflicting into a single world view has been around at least since Copernicus and Galileo upset the Ptolemaic world view, and is a continuing process in both science and religion.

MF -

Earlier on this thread you insisted that something had to clearly have the approval of the FP to matter in this discussion. Talmage's quotes meet that standard. The FP assigned him to write the book with the specific intent of sharing corret teachings for the purposes of church instructional lessons. The book was carefully reviewed by a committee for possible errors. The prophet gave his official sanction on the book. It was printed by the church. That should meet your standards in every way.

So, yes, you presented an earlier possibility that God moved the Hill Cumorah to NY. Actually, God had to move not just the hill, but the adjacent land, because Elder Talmage said:

"The final struggles between Nephites and Lamanites were waged in the vicinity of the Hill Cumorah, in what is now the State of New York, resulting in the destruction of the Nephites as a nation, about 400 A.D.

So whatever counts as "vicinity" had to be moved as well.

I see no other way for you to be consistent on this matter. Elder Talmage's statements meed your standard. They are clear. The only question left for you should be just how much land surrounding the hill God had to move along with the hill.

[beastie]

And the Eucharist as the Real Presence, the body blood soul and divinity of the savior in a piece of bread may be the major reason people leave the Catholic church.

Your point?

And again you miss the point that what anybody has said about the traditional view of Cumorah is irrelevant. There are points of view which can take all possible statements and harmonize them, and I have shown a few.

To those who not believe in personal revelation, there can be no answer. For those who do, there can be no question. And besides that, continuing revelation- that means changes- can be verified by testimony as well. Even your beloved all-knowing scientific method admits that paradigm changes can happen, not that there is particularly a need for one on this question.

You have said it yourself. No one is convincing anyone on either side. It is a waste of time.

For heaven's sake. I was very clear in my statements. I repeatedly said SOME LDS were going to be troubled by this. It doesn't take mind-reading or omniscience to make such a statement.

Earlier on this thread, you asserted that past teachings would only matter if they were doctrine approved by the FP. Elder Talmage's statements meet that standard. They are relevant.

[beastie]

You miss my point.

Either top level General Authorities ARE the authorities,

or else you folks are going to end up on the same course

that I saw the RLDS take -- one in which the counsel of

the leaders was no longer absolute doctrine, and a significant

number of members began to trust lower level voices to

fill the vacancy left by the leaders' silence/ambiguity.

If you allow the conclusions of low level apologists to

stand equal in value to the counsel of those ordained as

prophets, seers, revelators and translators, you'll soon

be on a slippery slope headed for confusion and dangerous

disorder.

But, who am I to warn you?

Continue on, just as you are -- the results will be more

effective (from my perspective), than if you actually

took the time to listen to what I've told you.

And I suppose that's OK with me.

UD

This is exactly why this issue interests so many exmormons.

[beastie]

Those listing primary causes of loss of faith should not neglect the inextricable relationship between one's expectations and the perception of anomaly. Since the Book of Mormon, for example, is the bedrock of faith for many people, the different expectations of the text, and how that influences our perceptions of what is most significant and telling about that text, can make all the difference. Personally, I've found all I need to to whenever I run across anything that bothers is keep my eyes open, gives things time, and re-examine my own assumptions now and then. The alternative, of course, is to stop looking, to insist on final answers now, and to refuse to re-examine one's own assumptions. The consequences of that alternative are not at all mysterious. It's the brittle that tend to shatter.

I've seen another good example of the difference my approach makes in reading John Welch's new book on Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon. After considering the cases of Sherem, Nehor, and Korihor, he responds to the B. H. Roberts complaint that the three cases are stereotyped, simplistic, and immature. After reading Welch's work, it should be evident that the problem was Roberts' simplistic and immature reading. And it won't do to wave around Roberts credentials or status as an Authority as an excuse to stop inquiry and thought in 1922. (See D&C 1:24-28, which calls into question critical assumptions that are frequently implicit and necessary supports for many skeptical approaches.)

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I think I was pretty clear in my summary in noting that some LDS are fine making the radical shift to LGT. And yes, it is a radical shift in understanding the BoM.

The fact that some LDS feel comfortable making that shift does not negate the fact that there are other LDS who will not feel comfortable making that shift, and will subsequently lose faith in the BoM.

[beastie]

Theres a problem in what you bolded:

There's no way that negative evidence on that hurts the Book of Mormon whatsoever once you believe in a limited geography. If you believe in a global geography, you're basically done, toasted, game over.

What Mormons have ever beleived in a "Global Geopgraphy"? Hemispherical possibly yes.

A "Global Model" you would be toasted I agree.

Oh, my, Zak. Someone who is going to proceed to assert that I haven't done any thinking ought to be careful enough to figure out who is the author of the phrase you are discounting.

[Zakuska]

I think I was pretty clear in my summary in noting that some LDS are fine making the radical shift to LGT. And yes, it is a radical shift in understanding the BoM.

The fact that some LDS feel comfortable making that shift does not negate the fact that there are other LDS who will not feel comfortable making that shift, and will subsequently lose faith in the BoM.

You forgot about some of us Fence Sitter types who see merrit in both camps, and feel comfortable right where we are for the momment.

[beastie]

And you would be right -- except for the part about "overwhelming evidence." There's really no slam dunk that devastates Mormonism, despite how desperately critics want to believe otherwise.

I do. But not for how others choose to misapply them.

Oh, ok. So I can say:

[beastie]

duplicate

[beastie]

You forgot about some of us Fence Sitter types who see merrit in both camps, and feel comfortable right where we are for the momment.

The existence of fence sitters does not alter my statement at all.

[Zakuska]

The existence of fence sitters does not alter my statement at all.

While true this is... it would be nice for some validation once in a while.

[beastie]

The following quotes are from a 2004 thread on this topic.

You're free to be absolutely consumed with concern. Meanwhile, I'm completely serene on this issue, as, I suspect, is Professor Hamblin.

Do consider that. Whether his more recent letter has credibility or nothing he writes has credibility, his 1990 letter doesn't establish that the Church has an official Book of Mormon geography.

If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had "concluded" that the Hill Cumorah of the Nephite and the Jaredites was the Hill Cumorah in New York, the Church would have announced that "conclusion" in a public and official way. If it had done so, you would by now have been able to point to such an announcement.

Whatever. Whether the focus be wider or smaller, it won't alter the simple fact that, if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had reached an offical position on the location of the Hill Cumorah , the Church would have announced that official position in a public and unambiguous way. And, had it done so, you would surely have been able to produce a copy of that announcement for our instruction.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never presented an official geography for the Book of Mormon. In order to justify your claim, you would have to show that the Church once did have such a geography, but is now in retreat from it. However, the quotation from George Q. Cannon in the nineteenth century, denying that the Church has an official position, predates any even remotely serious academic or scientific archaeological work in Mesoamerica, and the similar statement from Elder Widtsoe in the first half of the twentieth century predates all but the bare beginnnings of archaeological excavation in the region.

Dr. Peterson was eager to know if the church had ever made an official statement taking a stance on BoM geography. I think that Elder Talmage's statement about the Hill Cumorah in his FP approved "The Articles of Faith" should satisfy his demand.

Prof. Hamblin,

Thanks for your follow up. I'll try to address your questions, statements, concerns the best I can.

What this was all about was the circumstances and reasons surrounding the change of position of Watson or the First Presidency evident in the letter you cited in your article.

Are either of you aware of a more credible source that indicates this position has now changed or been retracted? If so, would you be so kind to provide it and address the following questions:

1. What possible new information could Watson have had in 1993, that would not have been available to him in 1990, to cause his answer to completely change by 180 degrees? Did you ask him why his position would now change? If so, what was his response.

2. Prior to the letter you received from Watson in 1993, what "official church source"

[Hamba Tuhan]

This is exactly why this issue interests so many exmormons.

Many of whom, it seems to me--and, admittedly, I'm still struggling to see things from their perspective--had a very different understanding of what it means to follow men who are genuinely called of God.

[Uncle Dale]

...

to follow men who are genuinely called

...

Sorenson or Meldrum?

One of them must be telling God's truth -- correct?

UD

[Hamba Tuhan]

Sorenson or Meldrum?

One of them must be telling God's truth -- correct?

My loyalty is to the prophets and apostles. I have no reservations whatsoever in following them. They are God's watchmen and mouthpieces, and I will never go wrong by following their unified counsel.

At the same time, the entire notion of continuing revelation which lies at the very base of 'Mormonism' inherently includes the necessity that, at any given point in time, understanding must be incomplete and therefore subject to expansion and even correction.

God is not some cosmic machine; He is a Father and an Educator. To re-employ an analogy I've used before, when I teach academic writing, I don't correct every single mistake in an essay because to do so would shut down the entire pedagogical process. Instead, I focus on issues of global importance--like content and argument. Once we've improved those, we keep working on them but start to include more lower-tier issues like structure and organisation. As those start to improve, and as content and argument continue to improve, we will eventually move on to issues of grammar, spelling, and punctuation.

Less mature writers inevitably want to begin with the mechanics of their essays, often considering that nothing else matters, and many of them are confused when, after weeks of assuming that their grammar, spelling, and punctuation have been fine because I've focussed their attention on more substantive issues, I finally start to provide correction in those areas.

Still others stress over which weight of paper their essays should be printed out on or whether it's necessary to submit them in plastic sleeves. Some of these are frustrated when I point out that it doesn't matter and therefore I don't care.

[Uncle Dale]

My loyalty is to the prophets and apostles.

...

No criticism on that.

Either the professed history of the House of Joseph in preColumbian

America is important to true doctrine, or it is not.

If it is important, then what "prophets and apostles" have said about

that subject will be worth a careful review.

So, if in October of 1975, Elder Marion G. Romney said:

"I testify to the church and do so in the name of Jesus Christ and by

the power of the Holy Ghost..." -- then perhaps such a bold statement

should be given some thoughtful consideration, even in the year 2010.

And, if in October of 1975, Elder Marion G. Romney said:

"in the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill

known as the hill Cumorah... [where events] occurred in that vicinity some

twenty-five centuries ago

[Hamba Tuhan]

And, if in October of 1975, Elder Marion G. Romney said: "in the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the hill Cumorah... [where events] occurred in that vicinity some twenty-five centuries ago

[mfbukowski]

MF -

Earlier on this thread you insisted that something had to clearly have the approval of the FP to matter in this discussion. Talmage's quotes meet that standard. The FP assigned him to write the book with the specific intent of sharing corret teachings for the purposes of church instructional lessons. The book was carefully reviewed by a committee for possible errors. The prophet gave his official sanction on the book. It was printed by the church. That should meet your standards in every way.

Your reliance on creating false straw-man arguments would almost be shocking if I hadn't seen so much of it.

Here is a link to the table of contents of the "Articles of Faith".

http://books.google.com/books?id=JecQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PR5&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=5#v=onepage&q=&f=false

As you can see, the table of contents alone is voluminous. The book covers practically ever area of gospel knowledge conceivable. When it was published, I am sure it was "state of the art", as WAS the study guide we have already discussed in some detail.

Are you trying to tell me that it is our belief that we should take this volume, as wonderful as it is, as inerrant scripture, when we do not even take the Bible as inerrant scripture? That there is no part of this book that has been supplanted by better scholarship on any topic it covers whatsoever? If that is what you are saying, you are sorely mistaken.

And unless I am sorely mistaken, I never said anything about "First Presidency approval" automatically constituting infallible doctrinal facts which are never ever subject to reinterpretation.

What I believe I said was that these letters and faxes did not constitute "doctrine", and I stand by that statement. IMO church publications may or may not be "doctrinal" regardless of if they are commissioned by the FP, especially after a hundred years or so, especially when they contain scholarship which as we all know changes over time.

If there are statements of a scientific nature in this volume (I can't remember) should we take those as "gospel" as well? What about biblical scholarship? Should we take those statements about the bible in this volume as infallibly true and unchangeable?

I think you are really not understanding ongoing revelation which is a cornerstone of the gospel.

[mfbukowski]

Either the professed history of the House of Joseph in preColumbian

America is important to true doctrine, or it is not.

And precisely which "history" would this be?

Are we discussing the Book of Mormon or its interpretation?

[Uncle Dale]

And precisely which "history" would this be?

Are we discussing the Book of Mormon or its interpretation?

I suppose, what really happened.

One RLDS elder told me that the Nephites covered the entire face of

the earth, from the Sea North even unto the Sea South.

Another RLDS elder told me that the Nephites only BEGAN to cover

the entire face of the earth, from the Sea North to the Sea South.

Now, one of those two explanations must be wrong -- or both of

them are wrong. They cannot both be right.

And, asking a Reorganized Apostle did not help matters -- as he

seemed to think both elders could simultaneously be correct and

incorrect, because the events did not occur in "usual history;"

whatever that euphemism means.

Can't the LDS Living Prophet just ask God for an answer, so that

we know what the Book of Helaman is telling us?

UD