In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[Jeff K.]

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?

Why not just look up the thread that debates policy versus doctrine. Same parsing for the most part. The same underlying assertion being that somehow there simply must be a way to undermine the church and the doctrine. Yawn.....

[beastie]

Why not just look up the thread that debates policy versus doctrine. Same parsing for the most part. The same underlying assertion being that somehow there simply must be a way to undermine the church and the doctrine. Yawn.....

What in the world would "policy" have to do with statements about BoM geography???

[mfbukowski]

edit: Fergetaboutit.

[Hyrum Page]

What in the world would "policy" have to do with statements about BoM geography???

beastie,

Hey, the game is up. Everyone knows what you are up to, and since nothing good can come of what you are up to, there is no reason to engage you seriously. Now read up on the difference between policy and doctrine. Then you will learn that it is not the policy to discuss Book of Mormon geography with apostates and critics.

[beastie]

beastie,

Hey, the game is up. Everyone knows what you are up to, and since nothing good can come of what you are up to, there is no reason to engage you seriously. Now read up on the difference between policy and doctrine. Then you will learn that it is not the policy to discuss Book of Mormon geography with apostates and critics.

LOL!

[Jeff K.]

Apostates and critics don't really care about the truth. They just don't like the church. Truth to them is only useful if it can be twisted in a certain way in order to attack the church.

Church doctrine is fairly straightforward. The geography is speculative, it always has been. The "official church teachings" is simply another made up, spur of the moment, what can we make stick today, lackluster approach to attack the church. If its not doctrine, then why are you worrying about it? Well, if you can't attack on doctrine, what is left, other than empty rhetoric? Oh, I forgot, it is really "serious" empty rhetoric. Yes, it is much better now.

[Nofear]

Here

[beastie]

So far, so good.

Yep, we would agree that there is some differentiation in credential weight we give to various opinions.

It is the word in red that is problematic. There is a certain obligation for members in good standing to recognize doctrine (though we do still allow some degree of latitude). There is no obligation, however, to recognize "everything else" - whatever the source (Prophet, Bishop, Stake President, High Priest Group Leader, etc.). Granted, members in good standing tend to give more credence to the opinions of the General Authorities - but that's just it - they are opinions. They can be true and often are. But they are not binding (unless the Spirit bears witness to the individual of the truthfulness of the opinion). A member can potentially get in trouble by publicly and repeatedly contradicting doctrine. There is much less risk if a member publicly and repeatedly contradicts "everything else". Example: A member can get in trouble if they repeatedly and publicly denounce the resurrection of Christ. However, no member will get in trouble for espousing a geography theory.

So, no, no there is no "official teaching" which is authoritative or in any way place any degree of obligation on a member to recognize any Book of Mormon geography other than the Golden Plates were physically withdrawn from some unnamed drumlin in Western New York which we later decided to call Cumorah. Call your statements from Articles of Faith by Talmage "official teaching" if it makes you feel better but the substantive and relevant result is that it has no consequential impact on what a member should feel to recognize. I rather suspect it was such obligatory commentary that Dr. Peterson intended and meaning when he asked for an "official position" in 2004. But, you'll find no such "official position".

In short, what Jeff K. said, but much longer winded.

PS: You are still more than welcome to write the Office of the First Presidency and ask if the geography statements in the Articles of Faith by Talmage represent "official teaching". As I said before, we'll happily await the response.

A teaching having authority does not necessarily translate into an obligation to believe.

I think it

[beastie]

Apostates and critics don't really care about the truth. They just don't like the church. Truth to them is only useful if it can be twisted in a certain way in order to attack the church.

Church doctrine is fairly straightforward. The geography is speculative, it always has been. The "official church teachings" is simply another made up, spur of the moment, what can we make stick today, lackluster approach to attack the church. If its not doctrine, then why are you worrying about it? Well, if you can't attack on doctrine, what is left, other than empty rhetoric? Oh, I forgot, it is really "serious" empty rhetoric. Yes, it is much better now.

Maybe you need to ask DCP. He certainly felt it would be pertinent if Joey could demonstrate that the church had publicly endorsed a position on BoM geography. By endorsing Talmage's work, they did just that.

If you don't think it's relevant, that's fine. I wasn't providing the information for you. You were not the one who repeatedly requested it.

[Jeff K.]

Maybe you need to ask DCP. He certainly felt it would be pertinent if Joey could demonstrate that the church had publicly endorsed a position on BoM geography. By endorsing Talmage's work, they did just that.

If you don't think it's relevant, that's fine. I wasn't providing the information for you. You were not the one who repeatedly requested it.

The church does say things publicly, does that mean its an endorsement? Or does it mean that, and allow me to bring this quote up again....

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.]

A teaching having authority does not necessarily translate into an obligation to believe.

I think it

[beastie]

I think its incredible that the answer has been clearly given and continues to be ignored (all for the same anti Mormon reasons, rather than reason). That people put forth strategies in an effort to live the gospel and implement the doctrine in their lives is a common stance by all organizations. Is the first presidency reliable? Yes. Are they wise in their counsel? Generally through practice and the years, they have proven invaluable in their counsel. If they have been otherwise their counsel would be ignored. Do they speak against doctrine? Not that I am aware of.

The first presidency constantly seeks to find ways in which they can implement doctrine in our lives, helping us internalize our beliefs. As such they can quickly change (and often have changed) their policy when necessary.

If you want endorsements, call Nike, I understand they have an opening.

Well, perhaps you can think of a more appropriate word for what President Snow did in regards to Talmage's book:

The Articles of Faith was released on 4 April 1899 in time for the church's semi-annual world general conference. Prior to its release. President Lorenzo Snow made the following statement:

During the early part of April there will be issued by the Deseret News a Church work, entitled "The Articles of Faith," the same being a series of lectures on the principal doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by Dr. James E. Talmage. The lectures were prepared by appointment of the First Presidency, and the book will be published by the Church. It is intended for use as a text book in the Church schools, Sunday schools, Improvement associations, quorums of the Priesthood, and other Church organizations in which the study of Theology is pursued, and also for individual use among the members of the Church. The work has been approved by the First Presidency, and I heartily commend it to members of the Church.19

Poor President Snow. He didn't know any better, and hence, didn't avoid the use of the word "doctrines", but we can forgive his ignorance. After all, he died long before any internet defenders of the faith could set him straight.

Sure sounds like an endorsement to me! But perhaps some other word will do. Apparently, for you, "policy" means teachings instead of management and plans of action, so who knows what "endorsement" might mean to you.

I'll repeat the link, but I shared this, and more quotes on page 46 of this thread.

www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/articles.html#anchor

You learn something new every day. I never knew the LDS church has no official teachings, other than, of course, the rare and elusive Higgs Boson Doctrine.

[Jeff K.]

Was the endorsement such that the book was included in the Doctrine and Covenants? Or was it the wise opinion of a prophet that such a book helps many of us internalize the gospel?

The key is "it sounds like an endorsement to you". Well good for you, I am sure as a faithful member, your "endorsement" of such a position is well received.

I heartily commend it to members of the Church

To "you" it is endorsement. What is the difference between an "endorsement" by the church and a recommendation by a prophet? Do you see a difference?

[Jeff K.]

Or is it the typical wordplay as you try valiently to make a mountain out of something smaller than the geological upheavel of a Talpedae?

[beastie]

Was the endorsement such that the book was included in the Doctrine and Covenants? Or was it the wise opinion of a prophet that such a book helps many of us internalize the gospel?

The key is "it sounds like an endorsement to you". Well good for you, I am sure as a faithful member, your "endorsement" of such a position is well received.

To "you" it is endorsement. What is the difference between an "endorsement" by the church and a recommendation by a prophet? Do you see a difference?

See my earlier comments about the problematic dichotomy of "Doctrine" and "Everything Else".

It's utterly bizarre to be accused of wordplay by you, Jeff, given your use of "policy" on this thread, as well as your resistance to the word "endorse."

Those poor prophets, who were struggling on their own prior to the age of internet defenders of the faith like Jeff K. If only they had realized that asserting that a text was prepared by appointment, approved by the FP, published by the church, intended for use as a textbook didn't really mean that they were "endorsing" the text. It only meant they were "recommending" the text.

Wordplay indeed.

Sadly, my break from work is now over. I think that JeffK's wordplay is a good place to end my participation on this thread. It's a great demonstration of...something. I'll leave that "something" to the minds of readers.

[Jeff K.]

And yet you fail to see the distinction between your goose and my gander? Have I asked the impossible question?

[Nofear]

A book officially endorsed by the Church may well have made a comment supportive of the one-hill-Cumorah theory but because that specific comment is not supported by an official statement by the First Presidency or the scriptures, that comment, by definition, does not and cannot be construed as establishing an official position for the Church on Book of Mormon Geography. James E. Talmage, did not and never could write anything that creates an official Church position (it is not within his ability/authority to do so). It does not matter mean that the book was officially endorsed. That just means the book was deemed worthy of serious consideration by the membership as "a series of lectures on the principal doctrines of the Church" (these being established elsewhere and previously). Nothing new was created by the book.

Let's say it again, and again, and again. The Church has not, and never has had an official position on Book of Mormon Geography. Indeed, many Brethren have specifically stated that the Lord has not revealed anything definitive and the office of the First Presidency has specifically put out missives that the affirming that fact.

You learn something new every day. I never knew the LDS church has no official teachings, other than, of course, the rare and elusive Higgs Boson Doctrine.

Just for fun, you should do a search for "official teachings" on the Gospel Library on lds.org. As I said before, it's not a term we really use. We can have them if you really want, but we talk about doctrines. We have official teaching materials. These present doctrines and principles deemed worth serious consideration by the membership (but again, they do not create doctrine or official positions).

This is a good place for me to end my participation. We're just repeating ourselves. I find your argument unpersuasive and quite unworthy.

[mfbukowski]

Oh come on you guys!

We HAVE to go for 1100 posts!

Why wimp out now? There have not been any real issues on this thread yet, and we still have over a thousand posts! Let's go for it!

What did you have for lunch?

[Anijen]

beastie date='03 January 2010 - 10:15 PM

Poor President Snow. He didn't know any better, and hence, didn't avoid the use of the word "doctrines", but we can forgive his ignorance. After all, he died long before any internet defenders of the faith could set him straight.

A little bit snarky remark but sometimes I am that way too. I hope not to be in my minuscule effort here to try to show even in that time (long before any internet...) That opinions varied even among the elite of the church.

For example we can go back to 19th century thoughts on the matter, church leaders even then were cautious in identifying sites of the Book of Mormon, other than the Hill Cumorah (the one in New York)which was were Moroni deposited the plates and were Joseph retrieved them. In 1887 President George Q. Cannon in the Juvenile instructor in which he said there;

"is considerable anxiety manifested to identify the sites of the ancient cities of the Nephites and to locate the exact spots where the stirring scenes described in the Book of Mormon were enacted."

Cannon believed that "beyond these few points, it may be said that the sites of the cities of the Nephites are left to conjecture."Link here

B H Roberts also shows in his writings his changing view of Book of Mormon Geography. In 1922 he changed his mind from Lehi's landing in Chili which was a statement erroneously attributed to Joseph Smith but was actually by Frdrick G Williams. Joseph himself had altered his views concerning the geography as evident of his letter to John Bernhisel thanking him for John Stevens book. Joseph wrote;

"of all histories that had been written pertaining to the antiquities of this country [Mesoamerica]it is the most correct" and it "supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon."

In 1903 President Joseph F. Smith had a convention on the Book of Mormon while discussing the topic of geography they listened to views some of them offering different views and theories. President Smith spoke saying that the location of Book of Mormon sites;

"was not of vital importance, and if there were differences of opinion on the question it would not affect the salvation of the people."

He said the same thing in 1921 while a new edition of the Book of Mormon was being prepared. However 25 years later he would use the finding of Zelph to support his view (opinion) that the hill Cumorah (final battle) was in the state of New York.

All this proves is that the words of our beloved leaders show they were human and were not inspired in all there writings and that those writings, as wonderful as they are, do not constitute official views of the church but it does show the personal opinions of these wonderful men.

It seems that the constant quoting of Elder Talmage's Articles of Faith is merely an argument from authority and I believe beastie is skillfully writing her ideas as to make us feel we are somehow questioning and even perhaps in a small way Evil speaking of the Lord

[Alf O'Mega]

Can anybody supply a doctrinal definition of doctrine? For example if doctrine is only to be found in the standard works, I'd like to see a statement from the standard works to that effect. Or if it is to include official declarations by the First Presidency, an official declaration by the First Presidency to that effect would satisfy this request. How about the standard works, official declarations by the First Presidency, and duly authorized press releases by the Public Affairs Department?

I haven't read Ostler's argument that there is no Mormon doctrine, but if no doctrinal statements have addressed the question of what constitutes doctrine, I think I can see a path to his conclusion.

[Nofear]

Can anybody supply a doctrinal definition of doctrine? For example if doctrine is only to be found in the standard works, I'd like to see a statement from the standard works to that effect. Or if it is to include official declarations by the First Presidency, an official declaration by the First Presidency to that effect would satisfy this request. How about the standard works, official declarations by the First Presidency, and duly authorized press releases by the Public Affairs Department?

I haven't read Ostler's argument that there is no Mormon doctrine, but if no doctrinal statements have addressed the question of what constitutes doctrine, I think I can see a path to his conclusion.

Is there any Mormon Doctrine is the blog post where Ostler asserts there is no Mormon "doctrine" whatsoever. I disagree with his statement and side with the LDS missive Approaching Mormon Doctrine. He, of course, does not find the press release authoritative - and rightly so. Nonetheless, I find the stance presented in the article defensible and correct.

What gets critics frustrated is they often want to make the tent-o'-doctrine much larger than we do.

[Hyrum Page]

It is the word in red that is problematic. There is a certain obligation for members in good standing to recognize doctrine (though we do still allow some degree of latitude). There is no obligation, however, to recognize "everything else" - whatever the source (Prophet, Bishop, Stake President, High Priest Group Leader, etc.). Granted, members in good standing tend to give more credence to the opinions of the General Authorities - but that's just it - they are opinions. They can be true and often are. But they are not binding (unless the Spirit bears witness to the individual of the truthfulness of the opinion). A member can potentially get in trouble by publicly and repeatedly contradicting doctrine. There is much less risk if a member publicly and repeatedly contradicts "everything else". Example: A member can get in trouble if they repeatedly and publicly denounce the resurrection of Christ. However, no member will get in trouble for espousing a geography theory.

Thank you. I find your formulation here very sensible. I appreciate the clarification.

So, no, no there is no "official teaching" which is authoritative or in any way place any degree of obligation on a member to recognize any Book of Mormon geography other than the Golden Plates were physically withdrawn from some unnamed drumlin in Western New York which we later decided to call Cumorah.

Here is where we run into trouble. You have claimed that all doctrine resides in, or is generated from, the scriptures. I refer you to D&C 128:20:

20 And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets

[Hyrum Page]

What gets critics frustrated is they often want to make the tent-o'-doctrine much larger than we do.

I think you may also find that a number of non-critics find the definition of LDS doctrine somewhat frustrating to grapple with. I would also suggest the problem is somewhat more complicated than the mere existence of critics.

[Alf O'Mega]

Is there any Mormon Doctrine is the blog post where Ostler asserts there is no Mormon "doctrine" whatsoever. I disagree with his statement and side with the LDS missive Approaching Mormon Doctrine. He, of course, does not find the press release authoritative - and rightly so. Nonetheless, I find the stance presented in the article defensible and correct.

So that's a "no" for Nofear. Anybody else?

[ToGo]

Can anybody supply a doctrinal definition of doctrine? For example if doctrine is only to be found in the standard works, I'd like to see a statement from the standard works to that effect. Or if it is to include official declarations by the First Presidency, an official declaration by the First Presidency to that effect would satisfy this request. How about the standard works, official declarations by the First Presidency, and duly authorized press releases by the Public Affairs Department?

I haven't read Ostler's argument that there is no Mormon doctrine, but if no doctrinal statements have addressed the question of what constitutes doctrine, I think I can see a path to his conclusion.

Alf O'Mega,

That kind of begs the question: from what or whom would you need to have the definition provided? Would you require the definition of doctrine to come from canonized scripture? (which means you are relying on those who make the decision of what is/is not canon) Would you rely on official declarations that are short of a definition that has been canonized? When you say duly authorized press releases by the Public Affairs Department, who would have to authorize them for the authorization to be 'duly'?

Joseph Smith did not accept what he was hearing from preachers and other men and prayed directly to God based on James 1:5 of the KJV of the Bible. Only after God the Father introduced Jesus as His Son and that Joseph was to hear Him did Jesus then provide answers. For a definition of doctrine, would you need such an experience personally?

Several who were Joseph Smith's contemporaries and associates believed Smith when he said he had received further revelation from Jesus or angels. Some of those came to question whether some of Smith's later statements were truly revelation even though Smith claimed that they were. They were questioning the authority of those statements.

Your question sort of refines the question of what beastie and other have been debating all these many recent pages in this thread.