Historicity Of The Bom

[Calm]

This is what annoys; I will use a standard for you, but we cannot use the same standard for ourselves because doing so condemns us to the same fate we seek for you.

Bit confused...do you mean "we will not use" and could you clarify what is the fate that "we seek for you"?

[Brant Gardner]

The church has changed its position on Book of Mormon Geography.

This statement is misleading because it presumes that the church has had a position and therefore the church has changed. Actual history is not in accord with this assumption. The church, as an official body, has been adamant that it has no position. There have been numerous individuals with opinions, and many of them with very similar opinions (and in leadership positions in the church). There is also the phenomenon of acceptable vocabulary that may or may not represent the geographic position that some more modern analysts insist it must.

When examined at the level of the development of ideas, it is very clear that the idea of Book of Mormon geography has been a subject of interest and discussion and multiple opinions. While some have achieved statistical weight, none have ever had official endorsement. Since it is pretty obvious that statistically popular belief neither dictates correct interpretation nor necessarily represents it, your argument is built on a false foundation.

[jskains]

I have.

Numerous times. Fasting and prayer.

I really wanted the B of M to be true. As you have said, I went with the answer I got.

Nothing in the B of M remotely comes close to the testimony I have received of the Biblical scriptures. To me it is a fair example of 19th century preaching and a poor substitute for writings inspired by the Holy Ghost given through true prophets.

The problem is that your DESIRE for the BoM to be true was your answer, but you missed it because you spent too much time waiting for Magical Unicorns to prance into your bedroom and tell you it is true.

Often people miss the answer because they have expectations of how the answer will be presented.

JMS

[Craig Paxton]

This statement is misleading because it presumes that the church has had a position and therefore the church has changed. Actual history is not in accord with this assumption. The church, as an official body, has been adamant that it has no position. There have been numerous individuals with opinions, and many of them with very similar opinions (and in leadership positions in the church). There is also the phenomenon of acceptable vocabulary that may or may not represent the geographic position that some more modern analysts insist it must.

When examined at the level of the development of ideas, it is very clear that the idea of Book of Mormon geography has been a subject of interest and discussion and multiple opinions. While some have achieved statistical weight, none have ever had official endorsement. Since it is pretty obvious that statistically popular belief neither dictates correct interpretation nor necessarily represents it, your argument is built on a false foundation.

We're nailing Jell-o to a wall again...."The Church" is always above the fray, as no opinion, is never responsible...it's just a cloud floating above us all.. is never answerable for the actions or opinion of those who claim to lead it.

I get your need to delve into simantincs...but while "The Church" has no opinion...its leaders certainly do and its lesson manuals have certainly taught the words of it's leaders as being authoritive...but It's good to know that "The Church" has no opinion...and its leaders words carry no weight and can be disregarded. I think we're actually getting somewhere.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Brant Gardner]

We're nailing Jell-o to a wall again...."The Church" is always above the fray, as no opinion, is never responsible...it's just a cloud floating above us all.. is never answerable for the actions or opinion of those who claim to lead it.

I apologize for assuming that you understood the difference, since the corporate church has often made the distinction, I thought you might have understood that. The official church has always separated official announcements from statements of individuals, regardless of the position they held. I agree that this process is much less clear in the earliest church when they were working things out, but nevertheless we have Joseph on record as making a distinction between when a prophet speaks as a prophet and as a man--so the distinction goes to the founder.

I get your need to delve into simantincs...

Clearly not, if that is the way you label it. What I am saying is that you have your history wrong. That is history, not semantics.

but while "The Church" has no opinion...its leaders certainly do and its lesson manuals have certainly taught the words of it's leaders as being authoritive...but It's good to know that "The Church" has no opinion...and its leaders words carry no weight and can be disregarded. I think we're actually getting somewhere.

Then you are open to understanding that the actual history of those opinions is that they were open, flexible, and incorporated multiple differing opinions from early on. If you are unaware of that history, please see http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=2&id=555.

[Craig Paxton]

Interesting that whenever one wants to pin "The Church" down to some specific or hold it accountable...apologist remind us just how nebulous "The Church" really is and how unaccountable it is for the musings of its leadership. Very nice...very convenient...very Jell-O esk...

Oh and Brant (may I call you Brant?) No need to apologize...You are not the first to use this apologetic tactic of parsing and separating "The Church" from any responsibility or accountability...although I do understand your need to do so...clearly "The Church" wouldn't want to be held responsible for the musing, preaching’s, teachings and sermons of its leadership...why they may make senseless comments that with the passing of time expose those leaders as mere men rather than inspired leaders having some special direct bat-phone to God. Yes I agree...it’s much better that "The Church" holds no positions, nor be held accountable for the musinfg of its leadership...I'm sure other hierarchical orgaonizations would LOVE not to be held responsible for the spoken or written words of its leaders...too...but then other hierarchical organizations don't claim that their leaders speak for God do they...

So which is it Brant? Do they speak for the God of all the Universe or are they mere men, claiming such, who often speculate and are more than often wrong?

[Kevin Christensen]

Interesting that whenever one wants to pin "The Church" down to some specific or hold it accountable...apologist remind us just how nebulous "The Church" really is and how unaccountable it is for the musings of its leadership. Very nice...very convenient...very Jell-O esk...

Oh and Brant (may I call you Brant?) No need to apologize...You are not the first to use this apologetic tactic of parsing and separating "The Church" from any responsibility or accountability...although I do understand your need to do so...clearly "The Church" wouldn't want to be held responsible for the musing, preaching’s, teachings and sermons of its leadership...why they may make senseless comments that with the passing of time expose those leaders as mere men rather than inspired leaders having some special direct bat-phone to God. Yes I agree...it’s much better that "The Church" holds no positions, nor be held accountable for the musinfg of its leadership...I'm sure other hierarchical orgaonizations would LOVE not to be held responsible for the spoken or written words of its leaders...too...but then other hierarchical organizations don't claim that their leaders speak for God do they...

So which is it Brant? Do they speak for the God of all the Universe or are they mere men, claiming such, who often speculate and are more than often wrong?

Good old "all or nothing" thinking, the "either/or" approach that excludes such notable options as presented in D&C 1:25-28:

And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

And inasmuch as they sought, wisdom they might be instructed;

And inasmuch as they sinned they might be, chastened, that they might repent;

And inasmuch as they were, humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

I do quote this a lot, I know, though that is because the implications have wide relevance. Those who expect prophets to be nothing less than God's sock puppets can always find something to be indignant about. Archimedes is famous for saying, "Give me a lever and a place to stand, and I can move the world."

Standing on demand for perfection from human agents makes imperfection decisive, and the easy access obviously decisive information (human imperfection being as common as grass) gives people leverage that is difficult for some to give up, as they realize how much power it gives them.

On the other hand, standing on the recognition that someone can receive Real inspiration on the level of expedience relative to divine thinking, quite different from human thought (see Isaiah 55:11-12) appeals to me because it leads me to make decisions based on broad perspectives, rather than narrow focus on human flaws.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited October 10, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[Brant Gardner]

although I do understand your need to do so...clearly "The Church" wouldn't want to be held responsible for the musing, preaching’s, teachings and sermons of its leadership

You tried this tactic before. I didn't accept it then, and the repetition doesn't make it more valid. You are attempting to put your own interpretation on something where official pronouncements and known history contradict your position.

...why they may make senseless comments that with the passing of time expose those leaders as mere men rather than inspired leaders having some special direct bat-phone to God. Yes I agree...it’s much better that "The Church" holds no positions, nor be held accountable for the musinfg of its leadership

Am I to understand that rather than actually deal with the history you are going to repeat your ideas about what the church ought to be? I'll stick with the history, thank you.

So which is it Brant? Do they speak for the God of all the Universe or are they mere men, claiming such, who often speculate and are more than often wrong?

You are still attempting to conflate official and unofficial, and while repeating that old and very tired (and poorly informed) argument, you elect to ignore actual history (the link I provided). I will respond again if you begin to deal with something that actually relates to known history.

[Jesterss]

Good old "all or nothing" thinking, the "either/or" approach that excludes such notable options as presented in D&C 1:25-28:

And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

And inasmuch as they sought, wisdom they might be instructed;

And inasmuch as they sinned they might be, chastened, that they might repent;

And inasmuch as they were, humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

Have any one of the people's Craig has laid claim to apologized or repented for any of their statements or believed they were in err?

[Brant Gardner]

Have any one of the people's Craig has laid claim to apologized or repented for any of their statements or believed they were in err?

Still the wrong question. This has been an open issue. Please engage actual history.

[Kevin Christensen]

Have any one of the people's Craig has laid claim to apologized or repented for any of their statements or believed they were in err?

He mentioned Elder McConkie, who famously said to forget everything that he wrote or said previous to President Kimball's 1978 revelation on the Priesthood, explaining that he said what he had said with limited light and understanding. The conditions that he explained as those that caused his err on this topic were not unique to that topic, nor to Elder McConkie, but are the common circumstance of all.

No one makes dogmatic assertions while thinking that they are making a mistake while doing so. But of course, whether those of us who have make mistakes ever come around to admitting it in public, that has nothing to do with whether or not we were wrong on such points. It just means ignorance cuts its own way. Nor does it exclude the possibility of real inspiration acting in our lives, particularly in areas where we have more humility, and seek with more sincere effort.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Jesterss]

Still the wrong question. This has been an open issue. Please engage actual history.

It's not the wrong question. It's only wrong because you don't want to address the validity of Craig's accusations of said persons.

[Jesterss]

He mentioned Elder McConkie, who famously said to forget everything that he wrote or said previous to President Kimball's 1978 revelation on the Priesthood, explaining that he said what he had said with limited light and understanding. The conditions that he explained as those that caused his err on this topic were not unique to that topic, nor to Elder McConkie, but are the common circumstance of all.

No one makes dogmatic assertions while thinking that they are making a mistake while doing so. But of course, whether those of us who have make mistakes ever come around to admitting it in public, that has nothing to do with whether or not we were wrong on such points. It just means ignorance cuts its own way. Nor does it exclude the possibility of real inspiration acting in our lives, particularly in areas where we have more humility, and seek with more sincere effort.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Was this so hard to state Brant Gardner? This would of suited your response better. Thank you Kevin. Perhaps this will keep the discussion going. As Brant was only avoiding answering.

[Brant Gardner]

Was this so hard to state Brant Gardner? This would of suited your response better. Thank you Kevin. Perhaps this will keep the discussion going. As Brant was only avoiding answering.

What I am trying to do is get the conversation on a productive tract. If the question is whether or not the church has changed its position, that is open to empirical evidence. The evidence clearly shows that as an institution, the church hasn't stated an opinion one way or the other--ergo, it cannot change positions on something about which it has taken no position.

If the question isn't the church, it is also historically demonstrable that there has been no single position, and that different people have held different positions. Ignoring history in a discussion that is supposed to be discussing history seems a little strange to me.

[Jesterss]

What I am trying to do is get the conversation on a productive tract. If the question is whether or not the church has changed its position, that is open to empirical evidence. The evidence clearly shows that as an institution, the church hasn't stated an opinion one way or the other--ergo, it cannot change positions on something about which it has taken no position.

If the question isn't the church, it is also historically demonstrable that there has been no single position, and that different people have held different positions. Ignoring history in a discussion that is supposed to be discussing history seems a little strange to me.

Right, and this was not argued. The point was that officials of the church who were ordained of the priesthood and given church leadership by God, have spoken and given their stance on the church's beliefs. Which would lead anyone to the speculation that they are speaking on behalf of the church. Recognized or canonized by the church or not, they are still speaking on behalf of the church when making such claims.

[wenglund]

Right, and this was not argued. The point was that officials of the church who were ordained of the priesthood and given church leadership by God, have spoken and given their stance on the church's beliefs. Which would lead anyone to the speculation that they are speaking on behalf of the church. Recognized or canonized by the church or not, they are still speaking on behalf of the church when making such claims.

The only one's led to speculate as you suggest are those who errantly presume to speak for us contrary to what we have spoken for ourselves. Please stop. You speak for yourself, and we will speak for ourselves. Deal?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Jesterss:

No. They alone are responsible for their statements. We have a long established method of determining what is our actual doctrine and random statements even by several General Authorities doesn't make it doctrine.

IE, Bruce R. McConkies "Mormon Doctrine" is more rightly to be called McConkie's Doctrine.

[Jesterss]

The only one's led to speculate as you suggest are those who errantly presume to speak for us contrary to what we have spoken for ourselves. Please stop. You speak for yourself, and we will speak for ourselves. Deal?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So are the priesthood holders and leaders and prophets ordained by God or not? When they speak of churchly matters, are they speaking falsely? When one speaks to a child in his guidance and counseling, is he speaking out of errancy just as some have out of their misunderstandings?

Where then can the line be drawn that these people are speaking presumptuously or accurately? Are we not to judge a prophet by his accuracy?

[Jesterss]

Jesterss:

No. They alone are responsible for their statements. We have a long established method of determining what is our actual doctrine and random statements even by several General Authorities doesn't make it doctrine.

IE, Bruce R. McConkies "Mormon Doctrine" is more rightly to be called McConkie's Doctrine.

We are talking about teachers though. Does God lead those he chooses to teach, to teach false doctrines sometimes but at other times do the right thing?

[altersteve]

So are the priesthood holders and leaders and prophets ordained by God or not? When they speak of churchly matters, are they speaking falsely? When one speaks to a child in his guidance and counseling, is he speaking out of errancy just as some have out of their misunderstandings?

Where then can the line be drawn that these people are speaking presumptuously or accurately? Are we not to judge a prophet by his accuracy?

Being a prophet doesn't mean perfect. A prophet can still have false beliefs. In the words of Joseph Smith, a prophet is only a prophet when he acts like one.

Edited October 10, 2011 by altersteve

[Jesterss]

The point you both make is understood: humans speak out of err sometimes. But we aren't just talking about any or some random humans here. We are talking about people who represent your church and are called by God to their understanding of God. If what they speak is sometimes in err, how then do we know what to take as real and truth?

[altersteve]

The point you both make is understood: humans speak out of err sometimes. But we aren't just talking about any or some random humans here. We are talking about people who represent your church and are called by God to their understanding of God. If what they speak is sometimes in err, how then do we know what to take as real and truth?

By the Spirit. Very simple. You should know this about LDS doctrine by now; we believe in revelation. That's the rock on which the Church is built.

[Jesterss]

Being a prophet doesn't mean perfect. A prophet can still have false beliefs. In the words of Joseph Smith, a prophet is only a prophet when he acts like one.

A prophet is only a prophet when what he proclaims in the name of the Lord is 100% accurate. I'm assuming this is kind of what you mean. The fact that at times they speak out on their own behalf. But then they are sending mixed signals right?

[altersteve]

A prophet is only a prophet when what he proclaims in the name of the Lord is 100% accurate. I'm assuming this is kind of what you mean. The fact that at times they speak out on their own behalf. But then they are sending mixed signals right?

No, they're not sending out mixed signals. When a prophet or apostle speaks based on his own understanding, he says so. But when he speaks as the Lord's mouthpiece, we'll know it.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Apostle Charles W. Penrose, who would later serve as counselor to President Smith, declared: "President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when 'Thus saith the Lord', comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill." (Millennial Star 54:191)

"And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God ... would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves." (Millennial Star, vol.14 #38, pp. 593-95)

President George Q. Cannon taught:

"The First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility. The infallibility is not given to men. They are fallible." (Gospel Truth, 1:206)

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.)

Brigham Young said:

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150)

"How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves." (JD 4:368)

"I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied ... Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord." (JD 3:45)

"... Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold sceptres of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer." (JD 1:312)