Historicity Of The Bom

[shalamabobbi]

Actually with this post it makes 5….but you seem to be the only one counting…

I think what is actually happening Brant is that you are using the cloak of history to somehow protect your beloved General Authorities from any responsibility for their own spoken and written words.

Let’s get to your point….throughout “Church History” various General Authorities have held differing views regarding various subjects. Ok point made…Its only stating the obvious. But you seem to be obsessed in protecting LDS Authorities from having…any authority, responsibility or accountability for what they say, write or think.

These are men who are in a unique position. They influence the thinking, beliefs and actions of millions of other believers. Brant whether or not you want to accept it or not…LDS members ARE influence by what GA’s write and say….they even have this power over member when they are wrong. It’s a fact…its reality…history or no history…it happened 181 years ago and it’s still happening today.

You somehow want to discount this reality…because thoughout “history” various GA’s have held various and often conflicting positions regarding one subject or another. So what? Members are impacted by whatever is taught by GA’s, even when what they are writing or preaching is false, wrong or untruthful.

Who is the responsible party for what I believe?

[Craig Paxton]

Who is the responsible party for what I believe?

Come on don't be silly...obviously YOU are responsible for whatever you choose to believe....but WHO influenced those beliefs?

[William Schryver]

Actually with this post it makes 5….but you seem to be the only one counting…

I think what is actually happening Brant is that you are using the cloak of history to somehow protect your beloved General Authorities from any responsibility for their own spoken and written words.

Let’s get to your point….throughout “Church History” various General Authorities have held differing views regarding various subjects. Ok point made…Its only stating the obvious. But you seem to be obsessed in protecting LDS Authorities from having…any authority, responsibility or accountability for what they say, write or think.

These are men who are in a unique position. They influence the thinking, beliefs and actions of millions of other believers. Brant whether or not you want to accept it or not…LDS members ARE influence by what GA’s write and say….they even have this power over member when they are wrong. It’s a fact…its reality…history or no history…it happened 181 years ago and it’s still happening today.

You somehow want to discount this reality…because thoughout “history” various GA’s have held various and often conflicting positions regarding one subject or another. So what? Members are impacted by whatever is taught by GA’s, even when what they are writing or preaching is false, wrong or untruthful.

First of all, as Brant and others are well aware, I am probably as "orthodox" as anyone among those typically characterized as LDS "apologists." I'm so orthodox that I am not 100% persuaded that Brother Holland, and Elders McConkie and Smith were even off-base when it came to their expressed views concerning a global flood and other similar controversial topics. That said, and notwithstanding my orthodox views, I don't believe that everything a prophet or apostle says is true or binding upon the membership of The Church of Jesus Christ. As many have frequently noted, our individual conclusions vis-a-vis a global flood or the Tower of Babel, etc., have no bearing on the fundamental saving principles of the gospel. Granted that someone is going to be proven incorrect in their opinions when all things are revealed. But so what?! If Brother Holland's views of these things are shown to be correct, then I'm sure Brant and others will be surprised, but they won't be any less saved (assuming, of course, that they meet the essential prerequisites of salvation). And conversely, if those who don't believe there was a global flood in the time of Noah turn out to be correct, Elder McConkie will no doubt be surprised, but I am confident he will be saved nonetheless, and he will no doubt respond to his surprise with the same words he used when the Priesthood was extended to all men, regardless of race, creed, or color:

"Forget everything that I have said ... that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter anymore."

Edited October 11, 2011 by William Schryver

[wenglund]

I completely agree with almost every point you've made here....however I do believe that it was the prevailing views taught. In this thread I have shown now three GA's Kimball, McConkie and now Holland (who was not a GA at the time of this article)...who taught this line of thinking. [i believe] They were completely and utterly wrong. Fair enough, they are men...I cut them some slack...[in my opinion] The passasge of time has demonstrated that they did not have any special or a more reliable source of information than any other human...in fact, I think they were actually hampered by their religious views which misled them with false information. [To me] They have not demonstrated that they have no more insight into reality than any other human and may have actually been impared with a false dicotomy due to the influence of their religious beliefs.

I hope you don't mind if I interjected certain helpful bracketed comments above. You are entitled to your opinion (much of which I disagree). I just wanted to avoid the possible misperception that your emphatic statements were factual or even authoritative rather than just your personal, and perhaps hyper-cynical opinion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You want to defend Holland …be my guest….

With care and selectivity, the Lord began almost at once to repeople the promised land. The Jaredites came first, with stories of the great flood fresh in their memories and the Lord’s solemn declaration ringing in their ears: “Whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them.” (Ether 2:8.)

What do you make of the word "repeople" in this quote?

[wenglund]

If Brother Holland's views of these things is shown to be correct, then I'm sure Brant and others will be surprised, but they won't be any less saved (assuming, of course, that they meet the essential prerequisites of salvation). And conversely, if those who don't believe there was a global flood in the time of Noah turn out to be correct, Elder McConkie will no doubt be surprised, but I am confident he will be saved nonetheless, and he will no doubt respond to his surprise with the same words he used when the Priesthood was extended to all men, regardless of race, creed, or color:

I view this as so important that I decided to re-post it in bold.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Craig Paxton]

I hope you don't mind if I interjected certain helpful bracketed comments above. You are entitled to your opinion (much of which I disagree). I just wanted to avoid the possible misperception that your emphatic statements were factual or even authoritative rather than just your personal, and perhaps hyper-cynical opinion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes Wade...brackets accepted...I accept that I could be completely wrong on everything I believe to be true...and any view I post here are merely my belief and should not be considered binding on anyone but me.

and yes at times we all seem to get hyper-cynical with our opinions...including me.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Craig Paxton]

What do you make of the word "repeople" in this quote?

Really? You want me to play your word parsing game? Ahhh duhhh...repeople means to repeople..in other words to put people where there are no people. And as he stated...the Jaradites came FIRST.

[mfbukowski]

As you seek out those available explanations, you might want to keep in mind that Moroni had about 20 years after the destruction of his people in which to trek to upstate New York and bury the plates where he could later lead young Joseph to find them. A number of shipwrecked castaways in the Gulf of Mexico made a similar trek on foot a few centuries ago, when the area was populated only by paleo-indians.

Thanks to you and calmoriah for the leads!

I have actually argued in favor of the theory just for its "theoretical" benefits, understanding that whatever it was based on would be unknowable anyway, but it will be good to see the full theory fleshed out

[William Schryver]

Come on don't be silly...obviously YOU are responsible for whatever you choose to believe....but WHO influenced those beliefs?

My most important beliefs--those that are related to my eternal salvation--have been most influenced by those who have been called as "special witnesses of Christ," within the context of their calling. As such, I have been very influenced by the following words:

"As to this question, I give my own personal answer. It is:

I know that my Redeemer lives … I am a witness that he was lifted up upon the cross of Calvary; that he was crucified, died, and rose again the third day; that he ascended into heaven, where, sitting on the right hand of God, the Father Almighty, he now reigns in everlasting glory; and that he will soon come again among the sons of men."

The Caravan Moves On, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, General Conference, October 1984

I have not been unduly influenced by anyone purporting to be a special witness of a global flood in the days of Noah.

[mfbukowski]

I view this as so important that I decided to re-post it in bold.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

When the Lord shows me that I was wrong about everything, I will be right there next to (but several steps below) Bro. McConkie, saluting and saying "Yep, I messed up big time!"

But until then I have nothing to rely on but what I think is right, for now.

[Brant Gardner]

I think what is actually happening Brant is that you are using the cloak of history to somehow protect your beloved General Authorities from any responsibility for their own spoken and written words.

No, I am trying to get through to the "problem" of "the church" changing what it teaches. You continue to return to individuals. There was a difference and there is a difference (even if you repeat it 6 times or more).

Let's take an example. Suppose we poll physicists prior to the proof of Einsteins theory of relativity. I would guess that they all accepted a Newtonian universe. They were wrong. I am sure that it took a while for some to be persuaded, even after the "proof" was available (they could show an effect predicted by the theory and otherwise unaccounted for).

What do we say about that situation? Did physicists change their mind? Of course. Is that a problem. I hope not. Did that have any relevance for an church to which they might have belonged? No. The "church" had to deal with the nature of the world long before and wasn't altered in this case at all. Was the LDS church changed or did it change its opinions? No, it had no teachings on physics before or after. Were there LDS physicist and did they change their mind? Assuredly.

There is a difference between what individuals believe and what is proclaimed as doctrine for the church. I do agree that there are teaching trends that change. I have seen lots of them. That is still different.

That is the last time I will repeat that particular issue. It should be sufficient by now.

But you seem to be obsessed in protecting LDS Authorities from having…any authority, responsibility or accountability for what they say, write or think.

Bunk. I am allowing them the ability to learn new things and understand things differently on the basis of new evidence. That is quite different from declaring binding doctrine on the church. It always has been. You are conflating the LDS situation with concepts of inerrantism that we never espouse.

These are men who are in a unique position. They influence the thinking, beliefs and actions of millions of other believers.

So did the physicists prior to Einstein.

Brant whether or not you want to accept it or not…LDS members ARE influence by what GA’s write and say

Please review anything I have written and try to find me saying anything contrary to this. I don't disagree that what GA's say is influential. That is pretty normal for any organization that is hierarchical (government, schools, etc.). The fact of influence does not equal a concept of inerrantism or binding doctrine. It is a statistical correlation between what they say and what people believe. Joseph Fielding Smith was enormously influential in his ideas on the creation of the world, in spite of being of a very different opinion than Talmage and Widstoe. Nevertheless, his opinions reached more people and had more influence. In spite of the fact that there was a popular opinion of what "the church" taught concerning evolution, there was a very clear (and less well known) official position that there was no official position.

If you want to see the very important difference between official and individual pronouncements, you might do well to investigate that period of time and the way in which ideas were promulgated. As I have been saying, history is against you.

You somehow want to discount this reality…because thoughout “history” various GA’s have held various and often conflicting positions regarding one subject or another. So what? Members are impacted by whatever is taught by GA’s, even when what they are writing or preaching is false, wrong or untruthful.

Wait, are you really changing your topic again? If General Authorities have disagreed and said so, then you understand that there was no monolithic opinion, ergo, no official position. If the only thing you have to say is that church members are affected by what GA's taught, you might have said so. That is a tautology. Are you really saying that it is requisite that GA's all know all knowledge before it is discovered so that they never say anything that will ever be contradicted? Really?

[why me]

President Harold B. Lee, said, “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write."(Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company., 1974), 162.)

Critics are always bringing up what a general authority said in the past as if everything that they may have said came from God. I have no idea how this started. I am sure that Joseph Smith said many things that had never been recorded. And to assume that everything he said or for that matter any general authority said was from god would be a mistake. And yet, the critics constantly bring up quotations.

If Joseph Smith knew that people would be bringing up something that he said in 1835 or for that matter in any year, he would be amazed. And I can write the same for Brigham Young or for any general authority that has his words recorded by critics of the lds church. They would find it unbelievable. No matter where I go on the internet, the catholic apologist forum, the other board, etc, general authority quotations are picked and pruned for criticism as if what they said they claimed came from god. These poor general authorities, if they would have known the state of our world now with their quotations posted on the internet to lambast the church, would have shut their mouths in disgust. And they would have never spoken a word.

Edited October 11, 2011 by why me

[why me]

You want to defend Holland …be my guest….

Defend him from what? I think that it is rather unfortunate that everything a church member may write who has some authority is judged by a critic. If I were a general authority knowing that someone like you is waiting to dissect every word or sentence and bring it back to life 20 years later, would make me puke or vomit from sheer pressure or nervousness. It is a huge pressure cooker to be in to be constantly weighing one's mouth or words in fear of a critic twisting it or believing that it came from god.

[Jesterss]

Defend him from what? I think that it is rather unfortunate that everything a church member may write who has some authority is judged by a critic. If I were a general authority knowing that someone like you is waiting to dissect every word or sentence and bring it back to life 20 years later, would make me puke or vomit from sheer pressure or nervousness. It is a huge pressure cooker to be in to be constantly weighing one's mouth or words in fear of a critic twisting it or believing that it came from god.

Is it? Or perhaps the leaders of the church could say, "I refuse to comment on behalf of the church".

[Jesterss]

President Harold B. Lee, said, “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write."(Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company., 1974), 162.)

Perhaps these words were uninspired and do not cover the others who felt such strong convictions to say what they say... Your advice goes both ways...

[why me]

Is it? Or perhaps the leaders of the church could say, "I refuse to comment on behalf of the church".

Come on lets get serious here. Members of the lds church are people. They say things. But to put anyone who is a general authority and judge every word that they say as if they are perfect or as if all that they may say is from god, is just crazy. If I were a general authority I would have my mouth gagged just in case that I would say something and have it recorded by youtube, to be brought up 30 years later to disprove the lds church. Unbelievable.

[why me]

Perhaps these words were uninspired and do not cover the others who felt such strong convictions to say what they say... Your advice goes both ways...

Here is the point: who cares? Critics are constantly bringing up quotations by GAs both past and present to disprove the lds church. I feel sorry for the GAs both past and present because what they say is analyzed and evaluated and critiqued in an effort to refute the lds church. I see this all the time on the catholic apologetic site. Brigham Young's words are still being brought up as if all that he wrote and said was from god.on that site in an effort to refute the lds church. Poor brigham never knew that everything that he said or wrote came from god. If the guy said to the store clerk: brother johnson, I'll take two pounds of sugar. I am sure that brother johnson thought that it came from god. Right?

[SeattleGrunge]

I tend to usually land somewhere in the middle between two arguments and feel the same way here. You have to throw those who don't believe in the church a bone here. Many GA's do speak as if their opinion were the doctrine of the church. BRM and JFS did it with evolution and despite our church having no position on it, 99% of members think the church is against evolution.

At the same time, the church can't be held accountable for everything said by every GA at every moment of their lives as a GA. It is like Brant is trying to explain, there is a different between what inspired members say is the belief of the church and what is core doctrine, presented by the unanimous first presidency or prophet as such.

[Jesterss]

Come on lets get serious here. Members of the lds church are people. They say things. But to put anyone who is a general authority and judge every word that they say as if they are perfect or as if all that they may say is from god, is just crazy. If I were a general authority I would have my mouth gagged just in case that I would say something and have it recorded by youtube, to be brought up 30 years later to disprove the lds church. Unbelievable.

That was serious. Since the beginning of this nation, things have been recorded about every person who ever speaks to recorders. If you don't believe what you are saying is inspired or true, why would you tell it to the newspapers or any reporters? I wouldn't go to the newspaper and tell them that I believe the catholic church is the one true church. It's not what I believe. The point made was that these officials and leaders were speaking about what they really did and do believe. They believe it is true, and they are spreading it willingly. Erroneous or not, they are speaking it and believe it.

The argument that they may be wrong or speaking only on their own behalf is not the argument. That is well understood. It's the fact that they are willingly preaching their own belief while holding such a high position in their church. Either just state what the church's view is, or don't spread untruthful doctrine.

You yourself understand that you wouldn't say something you knew was going to come back and bite you later. Everyone feels that way. Nobody wants to be wrong. You think they intentionally went out and said what they said just so they could be argued against? C'mon man..

[Jesterss]

I tend to usually land somewhere in the middle between two arguments and feel the same way here. You have to throw those who don't believe in the church a bone here. Many GA's do speak as if their opinion were the doctrine of the church. BRM and JFS did it with evolution and despite our church having no position on it, 99% of members think the church is against evolution.

At the same time, the church can't be held accountable for everything said by every GA at every moment of their lives as a GA. It is like Brant is trying to explain, there is a different between what inspired members say is the belief of the church and what is core doctrine, presented by the unanimous first presidency or prophet as such.

Agreed. I don't think anyone outside the church would disagree with this. But when defending topics of the BOM, GA's must realize they are going to receive backlash on their stance and their stance is going to be seen as one held by the church. Members who do not like to think as deeply as others may also cling to something a GA said and believe it.

But I will agree, it is not fair to say that something a GA said at a random point in time is fair to pin to the mormon church.

[why me]

I tend to usually land somewhere in the middle between two arguments and feel the same way here. You have to throw those who don't believe in the church a bone here. Many GA's do speak as if their opinion were the doctrine of the church. BRM and JFS did it with evolution and despite our church having no position on it, 99% of members think the church is against evolution.

At the same time, the church can't be held accountable for everything said by every GA at every moment of their lives as a GA. It is like Brant is trying to explain, there is a different between what inspired members say is the belief of the church and what is core doctrine, presented by the unanimous first presidency or prophet as such.

The point though is rather simple: critics hold everything a GA says to a microscope as if whatever they say is from god. It is lopsided in that direction 100 percent. No give or take. We have had several quotes by GAs which contradict the critics perceptions. But they ignore what the GAs have said about it. I provided just one quotation by Harold B. Lee. On page 12 there are more quotations by GAs about it.

[why me]

Agreed. I don't think anyone outside the church would disagree with this. But when defending topics of the BOM, GA's must realize they are going to receive backlash on their stance and their stance is going to be seen as one held by the church. Members who do not like to think as deeply as others may also cling to something a GA said and believe it.

So a GA must never state an opinion? That would be impossible. Human beings have opinions. Now of course members of the lds church must realize this also: that GAs state opinions. GAs must be in a bind because everything they say is torn apart by critics years later to cast doubt in members minds about the truthfulness of the lds church. I woud gag myself if I were a GA or I just wouldn't care and express myself as a human being should.

[Jesterss]

The point though is rather simple: critics hold everything a GA says to a microscope as if whatever they say is from god. It is lopsided in that direction 100 percent. No give or take.

Actually this is not true at all. The point is that Mormons believe that some things GA's say are directly from God, and that sometimes they are just speaking on their own accord. For non-LDS, it becomes one of trying to understand how LDS discern truth from untruth. How do you know when the GA is speaking the truth and when he is not? Furthermore, does everyone in the church understand how to discern truth from untruth?

We've already agreed that not everything is the truth, because we have already agreed that sometimes they speak on their own accord and not from God and sometimes they are in err. So that is not the question.

I think the biggest thing it comes down to is how do you know who believed the untruth and were lead astray? Why then, if some believe this untruth and were lead astray by a GA, how then can he be one of God, and anything he or she says is the Truth or from God?

[SeattleGrunge]

The point though is rather simple: critics hold everything a GA says to a microscope as if whatever they say is from god. It is lopsided in that direction 100 percent. No give or take. We have had several quotes by GAs which contradict the critics perceptions. But they ignore what the GAs have said about it. I provided just one quotation by Harold B. Lee. On page 12 there are more quotations by GAs about it.

Not only anti's, but most members do as well, thus giving more credit to the anti's position.