In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[wenglund]

Well...it looks like the nonsense is going to reach 50 pages. I would not have guessed that a single footnote in a relatively obscure article written over 15 years ago would be taken this far. But, I suppose that when Beastie is somehow involved in the discussion, it is not only possible, but virtually inevitable.

What is really odd, is that she left the Church some years back, but still views herself as in a position to lecture believers on what they believe, let alone seeing such relative non=issues for believers as cause for considerable attention for her as a non-believer. ;blink: It gives new meaning to the phrase; "get a life".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Smith]

By your standards, not even this qualifies a work as

[mfbukowski]

Let me try to explain this with a simple analogy.

On December 30, 2009, I went to the grocery store.

I don't believe you. Prove it.

You may have receipts though, etc. Prove to me what you did on March 9, 1989.

After all, you either did what you did or you didn't.

You don't have to have multiple universes to have different historic "realities", all we really have is historic reports with no conclusive evidence either way, especially with one reporter.

This is pointless.

[rockslider]

No revelation about Cumorah has been changed because none has been received. I'm not aware of any latter prophet coming out and saying that God told him that the NY hill is the hill of the last Nephite battle.

I'm certain that there are plenty of things that have made it into official Church curricula which are interpretations of and extrapolations from revelation but which are not revelation themselves and hence subject to error.

So you are saying that if it was not proceeded with "Thus sayeth the Lord" it was not revelation? If so, there has been NO revelation for many many years.

[mfbukowski]

Either the Nephites fought their final battle at Hill Cumorah now in New York or they didn

[Nofear]

I find it odd that you're willing to assume that none of the people involved - Talmage, the prophet, the church leaders assigned as the committee to review the work and check for accuracy - ever sought guidance from the Holy Ghost in this process.

Or perhaps you believe they sought guidance from the Holy Ghost, who just did not give the requested guidance?

Assumption 1 is incorrect. I'm quite confident that the committee seeks guidance from the Holy Ghost on the matter. I'm also quite confident that the Lord may be willing to let a few not-critical errors through (God isn't going to veto a manual for a spelling error for example).

Assumption 2 may be correct. I doubt anybody asked about it when there was only one theory on the table. I'm certain that some have asked. Some may have even gotten a response. Nonetheless, it remains a fact that no revelator has publicly stated any word of the Lord from the matter.

rockslider, please try your response again. You're way off the mark in your assumptions and it's scarcely worth trying to respond to such silliness.

[Hyrum Page]

I am not a historian and don't pretend to be, but I have some opinions based on epistemological issues. I think all that is available to anyone is their particular experience of any event, and then their characterization in language of their event, and then we have our interpretation of what it is that they said. I think historical events can be very nebulous things.

Obviously when you have a hundred people experiencing a battle all of whom write about it in detail, you are going to have a better idea of "what really happened" than if you have one individual having a spiritual experience who writes about it and the writings are discovered thousands of years later and interpreted in a language which is far removed from the original culturally and in every other way.

This is a much better answer than I had anticipated, I'll give you that.

I used to frankly have very little intellectual testimony of the historicity of the BOM, but now I have a very strong intellectual understanding of that due to the work of people like David Bokovoy etc. I have had a very strong spiritual testimony from the time I joined the church, however, despite my intellectual doubts at the time.

A testimony of the book's antiquity is not important to me. The mistake I think many critics make is to use historical arguments to dismiss the work as something serious and as sacred scripture.

[rockslider]

rockslider, please try your response again. You're way off the mark in your assumptions and it's scarcely worth trying to respond to such silliness.

What I find as silliness is the every moving target of what apologist consider doctrine/revelation/opinion. An example, Mark E. Petersen's comments on this exact topic being opinion verses revelation. Apologists have rendered Prophets/Seers/Revelators words fairly easy to categorize. If they agree with apologists ... its doctrine/revelation if it does not ... opinion.

[Nofear]

What I find as silliness is the every moving target of what apologist consider doctrine/revelation/opinion. An example, Mark E. Petersen's comments on this exact topic being opinion verses revelation. Apologists have rendered Prophets/Seers/Revelators words fairly easy to categorize. If they agree with apologists ... its doctrine/revelation if it does not ... opinion.

The idea of what is doctrine is quite stable. What annoys the nay-sayers is our unwillingness to let the critics define our doctrine. I know, I know... it's horrible of us.

It's what beastie is trying to do with respect to the Cumorah stuff here. But the argument falls completely apart because she's set up a strawman. It is partly for this reason that I advocate that we should pin Approaching Mormon Doctrine to this board.

[beastie]

So let me understand this, are you trying to tell us what we should or shouldn't consider doctrine or official teaching???

I asked believers a question.

Does this count as an official teaching?

[beastie]

The idea of what is doctrine is quite stable. What annoys the nay-sayers is our unwillingness to let the critics define our doctrine. I know, I know... it's horrible of us.

It's what beastie is trying to do with respect to the Cumorah stuff here. But the argument falls completely apart because she's set up a strawman. It is partly for this reason that I advocate that we should pin Approaching Mormon Doctrine to this board.

I'll repeat my question to you: does Talmage's The Articles of Faith count as an official teaching?

I ask because that is what Dr. Peterson repeatedly asked for on the 2004 thread. Apparently he thought that it would be a matter of some significance if critics could actually find something that counted as an "official teaching" that took a stance on BoM geography.

[beastie]

But of course KNOWING about exactly what happened is a different question isn't it?

You know, I am about burned out on this topic.

I think you are very philosophically naive about the philosophy of history.

This book is a good starting place to learn about some of the many fallacies you are committing.

My response was to Hyrum Page anyway, so if he wants to comment, I will answer, but I think we have been around and around on this topic enough.

My post clearly differentiated between KNOWING about history and the actual event. In fact, that was the entire point. If I were feeling more patient tonight, I'd try to help you understand it again, but I don't have the patience or desire to try again right now.

[beastie]

This is a much better answer than I had anticipated, I'll give you that.

A testimony of the book's antiquity is not important to me. The mistake I think many critics make is to use historical arguments to dismiss the work as something serious and as sacred scripture.

Part of the reason critics focus on historicity is due to the insistence of so many defenders of the faith that historicity cannot be separated from the

BoM's divine claims.

[Nofear]

I'll repeat my question to you: does Talmage's The Articles of Faith count as an official teaching?

The book does not, nor was it ever designed to, establish doctrine. The book, as a whole, is a sound presentation of doctrines established elsewhere and as such, has received authoritative endorsement. Nevertheless, nobody, today or then, would claim it to be an inerrant or complete expression of LDS doctrine.

Would you like a few more apologists to tell you the same thing? You've already been given this response.

Please use the link I posted as the framework wherein to assert that any past teaching on a hill Cumorah theory was designed to establish a doctrine of the Church.

[mfbukowski]

The mistake I think many critics make is to use historical arguments to dismiss the work as something serious and as sacred scripture.

I couldn't agree more!

[beastie]

The book does not, nor was it ever designed to, establish doctrine. The book, as a whole, is a sound presentation of doctrines established elsewhere and as such, has received authoritative endorsement. Nevertheless, nobody, today or then, would claim it to be an inerrant or complete expression of LDS doctrine.

Would you like a few more apologists to tell you the same thing? You've already been given this response.

Please use the link I posted as the framework wherein to assert that any past teaching on a hill Cumorah theory was designed to establish a doctrine of the Church.

I am attempting to differentiate between "doctrine" and "official teaching". Do you not see a difference between the two?

[Nofear]

I am attempting to differentiate between "doctrine" and "official teaching". Do you not see a difference between the two?

What difference do you see? I'm not aware of any definition that is relevant. We tend to speak of doctrines.

The Articles of Faith was designed to a book presenting official and authoritative ideas established elsewhere. It is, in of itself, not a source of any official teaching. Consequently, any idea found in the book that is not established elsewhere would not satisfy the criteria of an "official teaching" (whatever that is). Effort was made to avoid serious error in the book. Setting aside that a minor geography commentary isn't exactly serious, that the one-hill-Cumorah idea was the only player in town, it is quite understandable that its presence in the book made it past editorial review.

In the end, I maintain agreement with Dr. Peterson's 2004 comment as good enough.

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.

The Church has and had no official geography for the Book of Mormon. Assumptions have been taught, but no revelation concerning the matter has ever been claimed by any of the General Authorities.

[beastie]

Apparently BH Roberts was not alone in believing that the geography of the BoM was an issue that could trouble the faith of believers. I

[Nofear]

Apparently BH Roberts was not alone in believing that the geography of the BoM was an issue that could trouble the faith of believers. I

[beastie]

Isn't the source you are linking from Doctrines of Salvation - that is, the quote would be Joseph Fielding Smith? Not that it matters much.

I don't understand your question. I did say the quote was from Joseph Fielding Smith.

Apparently BH Roberts was not alone in believing that the geography of the BoM was an issue that could trouble the faith of believers. I

[beastie]

What difference do you see? I'm not aware of any definition that is relevant. We tend to speak of doctrines.

The Articles of Faith was designed to a book presenting official and authoritative ideas established elsewhere. It is, in of itself, not a source of any official teaching. Consequently, any idea found in the book that is not established elsewhere would not satisfy the criteria of an "official teaching" (whatever that is). Effort was made to avoid serious error in the book. Setting aside that a minor geography commentary isn't exactly serious, that the one-hill-Cumorah idea was the only player in town, it is quite understandable that its presence in the book made it past editorial review.

In the end, I maintain agreement with Dr. Peterson's 2004 comment as good enough.

The Church has and had no official geography for the Book of Mormon. Assumptions have been taught, but no revelation concerning the matter has ever been claimed by any of the General Authorities.

I see a huge difference.

One of the most common points of disagreement, even, sometimes, among believers, is what constitutes

[Anijen]

Isn't interesting that a long removed ex member continues in vain in the ridiculous attempts to lecture about what is doctrine and what we should believe. I always laugh to myself when such arrogance shows to imply they know what and how I believe.

Though early leaders might have speculated of the geography of the BoM it is still only that individuals speculation.

Though a church leader writes down about what his traditional learning and opinion about a hill are, and then his son in law also a church leader confirms that opinion, it still remains the fact that it is personal opinion of two church leaders and is not in anyway an official statement of doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Another General Authority conveys his thoughts that it was a limited geography and two different hills it is still that General Authorities thoughts but it is still not official doctrine of the church.

Although critics can quote many church leaders such as B H Roberts to Joseph F Smith even up to Bruce R McConkie just as many can be quoted to counter them.

In the recent past as Geography became a hot topic it was necessary for the Church to make an official statement in which states that the LDS Church has no official doctrine about the geography of the Book of Mormon.

So critics quote all you want as many leaders of the church you can find, the fact remains, it is still only their personal opinions on the matter. All the members who subscribe to a LGT theory subscribe to a theory.

And those of us who do think it was in Mesoamerica and the final battle hill was in that general area seem to be okay with that idea. Those who believe it to be in New York State seem to be okay with that. It seems its the critics who want to dictate our beliefs lecture to us what is church doctrine and what is not. They do so in the attempt to place wedges of doubt in our beliefs and stir up contention within our selves, they then hang back and high five each other and congratulate each other for psudo victories.

I may differ in ides with Sevenbak or Handy or even notHagoth but we together believe that the church is not ran by these wonderful inspired men but is ran by the Master Jesus Christ and he uses these wonderful and sometimes prone to error men. To us it is just a trivial pursuit where it all happened. We are just glad there is another testament of the Savior and that we believe even know it happened.

[beastie]

Isn't interesting that a long removed ex member continues in vain in the ridiculous attempts to lecture about what is doctrine and what we should believe. I always laugh to myself when such arrogance shows to imply they know what and how I believe.

Though early leaders might have speculated of the geography of the BoM it is still only that individuals speculation.

Though a church leader writes down about what his traditional learning and opinion about a hill are, and then his son in law also a church leader confirms that opinion, it still remains the fact that it is personal opinion of two church leaders and is not in anyway an official statement of doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Another General Authority conveys his thoughts that it was a limited geography and two different hills it is still that General Authorities thoughts but it is still not official doctrine of the church.

Although critics can quote many church leaders such as B H Roberts to Joseph F Smith even up to Bruce R McConkie just as many can be quoted to counter them.

In the recent past as Geography became a hot topic it was necessary for the Church to make an official statement in which states that the LDS Church has no official doctrine about the geography of the Book of Mormon.

So critics quote all you want as many leaders of the church you can find, the fact remains, it is still only their personal opinions on the matter. All the members who subscribe to a LGT theory subscribe to a theory.

And those of us who do think it was in Mesoamerica and the final battle hill was in that general area seem to be okay with that idea. Those who believe it to be in New York State seem to be okay with that. It seems its the critics who want to dictate our beliefs lecture to us what is church doctrine and what is not. They do so in the attempt to place wedges of doubt in our beliefs and stir up contention within our selves, they then hang back and high five each other and congratulate each other for psudo victories.

I may differ in ides with Sevenbak or Handy or even notHagoth but we together believe that the church is not ran by these wonderful inspired men but is ran by the Master Jesus Christ and he uses these wonderful and sometimes prone to error men. To us it is just a trivial pursuit where it all happened. We are just glad there is another testament of the Savior and that we believe even know it happened.

I'm focused right now on one particular quote - the one from Talmage. He was solicited by the FP to write texts that would be a reliable source for the church educational system. The articles were carefully reviewed by a special committee. The work was approved by the FP. The prophet encouraged members to read it and view it as accurate.

This still doesn't count as anything more than Talmage's opinion, and yet the Ogden fax is supposed to be accepted as representing the official church stance.

Ok.

[mfbukowski]

This still doesn't count as anything more than Talmage's opinion, and yet the Ogden fax is supposed to be accepted as representing the official church stance.

No it isn't. It never was. That is the entire point. It is a statement about the lack of doctrine on the subject. Ogden was never capable of making doctrine. Neither was Watson.

You keep changing sides. A little slimy, don't you think?

I was talking about what was and what was not doctrine, and now suddenly you are talking about the difference between "teachings" and "doctrine".

You really need to get your story straight.

Any credibility you ever had has evaporated totally imo. Consistency is kind of important you know.

Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and making no sense whatsoever.

[Nofear]

I don't understand your question. I did say the quote was from Joseph Fielding Smith.

Oops. My apologies.