In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[Nofear]

So when Dr. Peterson, in 2004, kept asking Joey for an example of the church

[Hyrum Page]

I know it annoys the critics to refuse to let them define for us what is doctrine or official teaching. But there it is. Critic if you must, but try to have the courtesy of playing by our rules.

beastie,

All that you need to know concerning why your observations will not be taken seriously is contained in these two sentences. You have no standing, so you can't make a valid critique. To play by the rules you must observe the implicit authorities that define the issue at hand. If you try something else, you are wrong.

Hyrum

[Malc]

There is no book/text that is official teaching other than the scriptures. They contain official teachings.

....

Could you please clarify this statement - do the scriptures contain all of the official teachings of the church?

[beastie]

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.

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to anijen. Not all believers share your stance on this issue.

BTW, what is "slimy" is accusing me of being dishonest because I did not cite the poster's name and time stamp in my replies (because, you know, it would be reasonable to assume that I just made the quotes up, apparently), and then ignoring the name of the poster to whom I was replying and pretend that I was replying to YOU, and thereby being inconsistent.

[beastie]

There is no book/text that is official teaching other than the scriptures. They contain official teachings. But often the texts that we use to disseminate these official ideas need revision and clarification. The texts are refining and getting better at being careful about what can be accurately stated. Again, let me repeat, none of these texts are sources - they do not establish official teachings. They are there only to present them. And, nobody, not the Church correlation committee, or anybody else with a lick of sense will claim that the texts are perfect and error free in their goal.

So, yes, we'll have to disagree. I know it annoys the critics to refuse to let them define for us what is doctrine or official teaching. But there it is. Critic if you must, but try to have the courtesy of playing by our rules.

I suspect my response continues to be unsatisfactory (as I keep saying the same thing). Please feel free to write the office of the First Presidency. Point out your quotes. Ask the office if these statements constitute or ever constituted "official teaching" and report back to us. We'll wait.

Which underscores my earlier point - that nobody is claiming revelation on the topic. Joseph Fielding Smith was making an argument based on his understanding of commentary on Zelph (and I would contend that Pres. Smith got it wrong (see What is the Significance of Zelph in the Study of Book of Mormon Geography? and related thread going on right now on this board). And is Anijen points out, we are perfectly ok with that.

You just told me, and I quote,

[cdowis]

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.

Actually that is not far from the truth. As a convert since 1962, having read the Book of Mormon over 50 times (literally), and the other scriptures many times, having attended almost every General Conference, almost 100% attendance at church over these years, a full-time mission, holding various positions in the church, attending BYU (including religion classes) == I feel confident in what is doctrine and what is opinion.

I have spent my entire adult life reading, studying and trying to live the teachings and doctrines of the church.

If an antimormon tries to tell me what is doctrine, comparing their experience with mine, I feel confident that I know something that they do not know.

So, yes, you do indeed have a measure of what is official doctrine.

[Nofear]

Could you please clarify this statement - do the scriptures contain all of the official teachings of the church?

Certainly. beastie seems to have utterly misunderstood my comment as well, so I apologize for lacking clarity.

The only books (texts with lots of pages) that we recognize as authoritative and generative of doctrine are the scriptures. There are other official proclamations and statements (shorter texts that wouldn't qualify as a book) that have generated/established official teachings and doctrines of the Church. The Articles of Faith book by Talmage has many of these doctrines and official teachings in it. These ideas/concepts/teachings are authoritative. The book, in of itself, is not an authoritative or binding document in any way. It does not create doctrine. It is not a source of official teachings, merely a container.

You just told me, and I quote,

[Hyrum Page]

PS: My avatar name is Nofear, not NoFear. It is quite rude to presume to interpret one's presentation of their moniker.

Or it was an inadvertent error.

[Hyrum Page]

The only books (texts with lots of pages) that we recognize as authoritative and generative of doctrine are the scriptures.

From where I sit, the word 'generative' suggests that while a doctrine may be grounded in scripture, it is not actually explicitly stated in scripture, and thus arguably exists outside of scripture although not completely independent of it. This would tend to raise the same old question again: where outside of the scriptures is authoritative doctrine to be found? If there is nothing outside of the scriptures that is all doctrine, but the scriptures do not explicitly lay out all doctrine, then there is really no single source to which one can go to find the doctrine of the LDS Church. I think Ostler is right. There is no Mormon doctrine. Looking at your statement here at least makes me feel like that ought to be the case, since your definition of how the scriptures are to be understood borders on the rhetorical prestidigitation that drove Mormonism away from orthodox Christianity in the first place. It may be fun to think like this, but it does start to look like a sophistic dodge.

[Calm]

FYI in case no one's mentioned it yet, Elder Talmage's book Jesus the Christ is still being distributed directly by the Church (through Church Distribution). It is also part of the Missionary Reference Library.

http://www.ldscatalog.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10151&storeId=10151&productId=41775&langId=-1&cg1=13710&cg2=13711&cg3=&cg4=&cg5=&sortId=3&sortOr=1&retURLtext=Back%20to%20'Books%20and%20Manuals'&retURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ldscatalog.com%2Fwebapp%2Fwcs%2Fstores%2Fservlet%2FCategoryDisplay%3FcatalogId%3D10151%26amp%3BstoreId%3D10151%26amp%3BcategoryId%3D13711%26amp%3BlangId%3D-1%26amp%3Bcg1%3D13710%26amp%3Bcg2%3D%26amp%3Bcg3%3D%26amp%3Bcg4%3D%26amp%3Bcg5%3D%26pageId%3D1%26pageCt%3D15%26sortId%3D3%26sortOr%3D1

It would seem that the Church at the very least views the Articles of Faith book in a different, less church necessary and perhaps even appropriate than Jesus the Christ and the few other books offered besides scriptures and manuals.

[Malc]

Certainly. beastie seems to have utterly misunderstood my comment as well, so I apologize for lacking clarity.

The only books (texts with lots of pages) that we recognize as authoritative and generative of doctrine are the scriptures. There are other official proclamations and statements (shorter texts that wouldn't qualify as a book) that have generated/established official teachings and doctrines of the Church. The Articles of Faith book by Talmage has many of these doctrines and official teachings in it. These ideas/concepts/teachings are authoritative. The book, in of itself, is not an authoritative or binding document in any way. It does not create doctrine. It is not a source of official teachings, merely a container.

Sorry if I seem to be pedantic about this, but does "has many of these doctrines and official teachings in it" mean that although the book does not contain all doctrines and official teachings, you accept all of the contents of the book as "doctrines and official teachings"? If not, are you concerned at all about how you or anyone else can distinguish the "doctrines and official teachings" from the rest of th content of the book?

Barring that, I simply invite you to write the office of the First Presidency and ask them... "Do these or did these quotations I cite above in The Articles of Faith by James E. Talmage constitute an official stance and/or teaching of the Church on Book of Mormon geography?" Just ask. We'll wait for the response.

PS: My avatar name is Nofear, not NoFear. It is quite rude to presume to interpret one's presentation of their moniker.

Sorry, I inadvertently called you NoFear - no rudeness intended, and no intent to interpret your presentation of your moniker.

[beastie]

Certainly. beastie seems to have utterly misunderstood my comment as well, so I apologize for lacking clarity.

The only books (texts with lots of pages) that we recognize as authoritative and generative of doctrine are the scriptures. There are other official proclamations and statements (shorter texts that wouldn't qualify as a book) that have generated/established official teachings and doctrines of the Church. The Articles of Faith book by Talmage has many of these doctrines and official teachings in it. These ideas/concepts/teachings are authoritative. The book, in of itself, is not an authoritative or binding document in any way. It does not create doctrine. It is not a source of official teachings, merely a container.

Hopefully my clarification to Malc clears things up for you. Since most of your commentary was based off an erroneous interpretation of my comment I shan't bother responding to those segments. We'll just pretend they aren't there.

Yes, we'll disagree here. Talmage was not asked to make any statement about Book of Mormon geography. He simply happened to make a comment about what was believed by most.

As, The Articles of Faith by Talmage is not a generator of official statements, if you wish to assert that it presents official teaching you need to cite the official source of Talmage's statement. What official statement lead Bro. Talmage to write it? Met that criteria, and you'll have countered Dr. Peterson's claim (which I'll echo/second myself).

Barring that, I simply invite you to write the office of the First Presidency and ask them... "Do these or did these quotations I cite above in The Articles of Faith by James E. Talmage constitute an official stance and/or teaching of the Church on Book of Mormon geography?" Just ask. We'll wait for the response.

PS: My avatar name is Nofear, not NoFear. It is quite rude to presume to interpret one's presentation of their moniker.

I'll come back to your other comments later, but just have to speak to this "rudeness" accusation because I inadvertantly misspelled your name. I am frequently called "beastly" on this board (for the latest example, see selek in "I'm Glad I'm Not a Mormon", a thread on which I have not participated at all, post 2- ), and on THIS thread MF has accused me of being dishonest for not putting the time stamp on my quotes, and "slimy" for supposedly being inconsistent. Now, according to you, I'm rude because I inadvertently put an extra capital in your name.

This is one reason I am sporadic in posting here. One can only take so much.

[Nofear]

From where I sit, the word 'generative' suggests that while a doctrine may be grounded in scripture, it is not actually explicitly stated in scripture, and thus arguably exists outside of scripture although not completely independent of it. This would tend to raise the same old question again: where outside of the scriptures is authoritative doctrine to be found? If there is nothing outside of the scriptures that is all doctrine, but the scriptures do not explicitly lay out all doctrine, then there is really no single source to which one can go to find the doctrine of the LDS Church. I think Ostler is right. There is no Mormon doctrine.

What we have is the scriptures. We also have authoritative statements from current prophets (e.g. official proclamations). Beyond that, we have a great deal of commentary made wherein the ultimate source of truth can personally reveal truth. Upon receipt of such revelation, the teaching becomes personally binding.

If Ostler did indeed suggest there is no doctrine in Mormonism, I would disagree with it as being hyperbolic. There is doctrine. The set is small. That Jesus Christ resurrected with a body of flesh and bones is unequivocally doctrine. Nonetheless, there are plenty of things which are true which are not doctrine which are taught. There are plenty of things which are true which are not doctrine which are not taught. There are plenty of things we think are true which may or may not be taught. There are some things, undoubtedly, which are not true or quite accurate which are also taught.

Sorry if I seem to be pedantic about this, but does "has many of these doctrines and official teachings in it" mean that although the book does not contain all doctrines and official teachings, you accept all of the contents of the book as "doctrines and official teachings"? If not, are you concerned at all about how you or anyone else can distinguish the "doctrines and official teachings" from the rest of th content of the book?

As per above, there are plenty of things which are true which are not doctrine. Much effort is made to make sure only true things are contained but extrapolations and interpretations are, of course, made. How much latitude in extrapolation and interpretation is made varies on the audience of the book. For example, "Preach My Gospel" will avoid any kind of conjecture and everything is backed up with some kind of official source. The institute manuals, on the other hand, will contain a great deal which is speculative or non-authoritative. Why? Because the institute students are expected to utilize the ultimate source of truth as a discerning instrument with greater precision than somebody investigating the Church.

So, if any Mormon or critic wishes to claim something as true - they are welcome to do so same as any man. But if any Mormon or critic wishes to claim something as doctrine or an official teaching they best be able to properly cite for reference. And alas, no such proper citation has been found for the claim that the Church has officially endorsed any geography of the Book of Mormon as settled.

[Nofear]

I'll come back to your other comments later, but just have to speak to this "rudeness" accusation because I inadvertantly misspelled your name. Now, according to you, I'm rude because I inadvertently put an extra capital in your name.

Plenty of things are rude which are inadvertent. Not a serious offense. Like if somebody called you a guy (I'm pretty sure you're female) or somebody spelled Ceeboo, Ceebo. No need to fret over it. We get corrected and move on.

I am frequently called "beastly" on this board (for the latest example, see selek in "I'm Glad I'm Not a Mormon", a thread on which I have not participated at all, post 2- ), and on THIS thread MF has accused me of being dishonest for not putting the time stamp on my quotes, and "slimy" for supposedly being inconsistent.

Yeah, I wish there was any easier way to reference a post other than copy and paste. Sometimes it's just easier to write [ quote ] and be done with it.

[Hyrum Page]

What we have is the scriptures. We also have authoritative statements from current prophets (e.g. official proclamations). Beyond that, we have a great deal of commentary made wherein the ultimate source of truth can personally reveal truth. Upon receipt of such revelation, the teaching becomes personally binding.

So would you acknowledge that not all doctrine is found within the scriptures, although it may arguably be grounded in scripture or found to be consistent with scripture? What happens to authoritative statements of past prophets? If they are not canonized in the Standard Works, are they 'dead letter' upon the decease of the prophet?

If Ostler did indeed suggest there is no doctrine in Mormonism, I would disagree with it as being hyperbolic. There is doctrine. The set is small. That Jesus Christ resurrected with a body of flesh and bones is unequivocally doctrine. Nonetheless, there are plenty of things which are true which are not doctrine which are taught. There are plenty of things which are true which are not doctrine which are not taught. There are plenty of things we think are true which may or may not be taught. There are some things, undoubtedly, which are not true or quite accurate which are also taught.

He did argue that, but you should really read his argument before you judge its merits. Otherwise I don't find anything disagreeable in what you write here. I am puzzled, however, about why Mormon scholars take their Book of Mormon geography arguments so seriously when, as you say, there has been no doctrinal pronouncement on the matter. Indeed, since there is nothing about Book of Mormon geography that is either salvific or even set out in sufficient detail so as to be identifiable beyond argument, I have a hard time taking all of these scholarly discussions of the matter very seriously at all. It is a little odd to see Mormon scholars approaching guys like Meldrum with the warhammer of scholarly opinion to beat down a view that is harmless enough and in the end inconsequential in the matter of one's salvation. At worst it would seem that these Great Lakes Geography characters are guilty of reading the text according to the very same assumptions as the book's first readers.

I find it difficult to understand how some self-appointed LDS apologists will insist on certain views of geography to the point that one would almost assume it was essential for members to agree.

[Anijen]

Hyrum smith; I find it difficult to understand how some self-appointed LDS apologists will insist on certain views of geography to the point that one would almost assume it was essential for members to agree.

I dunno I disagree with a few posters on this board regarding geography but I don't think we find it essential that they have to agree with me, or I with them. In fact I find it in some cases it causes the research bug in me to come out and makes me study more which is never a bad thing.

For example I don't begrudge Meldrum or any who take his view on geography more seriously than they do Sorenson's view. However I do feel that selling his viewpoint is questionable.

I have a minor irritation for those who use FPR as evidences when many times it is in the long run detrimental to defending the faith. I also feel antagonistic toward those who might use fraudulent evidence to bolster their claims (Michigan relics). I reserve my most acerbic feelings toward those who make up stuff to defend the church and again in the long run it ends doing more harm than any good.

Just my two cents, thanks for taking the time to read my rantings...

Just thinking out loud

Anijen

[beastie]

Oh dear, I forgot to reply the "right" way. Lest I be accused of dishonesty again, this reply was to this:

Nofear, on 02 January 2010 - 07:21 PM

Yes, I did misunderstand your post. Thank you for the clarification.

I don

[Jeff K.]

SALT LAKE CITY 4 May 2007 Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.

The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined.

The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context (see here and here), and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four

[Jeff K.]

This should answer most of the questions raised such as::

We

[beastie]

This should answer most of the questions raised such as::

Shown to be incorrect

Shown to be incorrect

Also incorrect. The amount of research by an individual reflects the care taken, not the truth of doctrine. It is a source from prophets, but it is not doctrine.

The position attempts to create a controversy that isn't there.

I did not assert it was "doctrine". In fact, I explicitly stated otherwise.

(edit on, I see you were referring to the earlier linked page on doctrine) Your entire rebuttal is contigent upon my calling the Talmage statement "doctrine", which I did not.

Do you not see a difference between "doctrine" and "official church teachings"?

It seems to me that if some of you were to follow through with your own reasoning on this thread, you would be forced to declare that official educational materials published by the church do NOT contain "official church teaching", either.

Here's a question that may help to differentiate between doctrine and official church teachings. Do the missionary lessons contain official church teachings?

[beastie]

Here

[rockslider]

Here

[Hyrum Page]

Here

[Hyrum Page]

I wonder if the Meldrumites will ever put up their own apologetics forum? Maybe they would be easier to get a straight answer out of?

I would like to see some of the more informed ones come to these boards and hash it out with their detractors.

[rockslider]

I would like to see some of the more informed ones come to these boards and hash it out with their detractors.

What would be fun is if MI budget cuts opened up a few office spaces and MI got some new neighbors. Then you guys could work things out right there in private.