What Old World Domesticated Plants & Animals Did Lehi Bring?

[will227457]

As for as I know it is not contemporary doctrine. 

 

so saith Will227457

[ERayR]

As for as I know it is not contemporary doctrine. 

 

so saith Will227457

 

I don't know that it ever has been unless you consider every period and comma as doctrine.

[Robert F. Smith]

Do you mean to say that there are no contemporary CES study manuals

or class instruction manuals which cite the Lehi's seeds passages in the

Book of Mormon as being true doctrine?

 

My impression has always been, that where the Standard Works present

an historical event as being factual, that the modern Church authorities

cite that fact (now and then) and thus endorse it as doctrine.

 

However, I may be wrong in my understanding.

 

I would be happy to post on one of my web-page articles that 21st Century

Mormons do NOT accept the Lehi's seeds reference(s) as LDS doctrine.

 

UD

Are you trying to create a theology of seeds, Dale?  That's what it sounds like.  Questions as to what sort of cultigens were present among the Jaredites, Nephites, Lamanites, and Amerinds are no more doctrinal questions than, say, Book of Mormon geographical correlations.  That is, it may be true that Orson Pratt put all manner of geography correlations in his 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon, all of which were removed in the 1920 edition (by another Apostle, James Talmage).  Were those doctrinal (theological) changes?  Is that what you are trying to say?  Or are you really playing cat-and-mouse with us?  Again . . .

[Uncle Dale]

 

...Orson Pratt put all manner of geography correlations in his 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon, all of which were removed in the 1920 edition

...

 

As I understand the term "doctrine," Pratt's additions for the text

were doctrine, so long as they remained in the book. Once they

were denounced, renounced, or simply conceded to be less than

fully factual (by the Living Prophet and/or the quorums assembled),

they ceased to be doctrine.

 

Then again, I confessedly have a Josephite understanding of what

"doctrine" entails. I had a lengthy argument with a Mormon, a few

years ago, as to whether the 1835 D&C was the "law of the Church,"

and whether or not members during the 1835-40 period were tried

and judged in church courts, based upon the content of that book.

 

My opponent said no -- not all the sections were "doctrine," and thus

Joseph Smith, Jr. was not bound by the wording of the section on

marriage -- because monogamous marriage was not the a "doctrine"

of the Church. He argued that God never intended the monogamous

section to have been published in the first place; that it was not a

revelation; and therefore no member was bound by its provisions.

 

If that sort of rationalization represents the LDS concept of what is

official doctrine, and what is not official doctrine, then I do not see

how an outsider could ever write an accurate article or book which

attempted to relate some cardinal points of official Mormon doctrine.

 

Another example. The testimonies of the 3 and the 8 witnesses are

published in the CoC Book of Mormon. Before I left their ranks, I asked

an Apostle (one who admitted in private that he did not accept the text

as being an authentic ancient document) whether or not it was the

teaching of the church that those two witness statements were true.

His answer was "Of course they are official doctrine. If they were not,

then we would not publish the book with those statements in it."

 

I hesitate to ask whether a Mormon Apostle would say the same thing.

But it would be very helpful if somebody in a position of authority

would communicate an official list of what is doctrine and what is not.

Would Talmadge's books on Christ and the Articles of Faith be official

doctrine? I suppose not.

 

But... what is?

 

UD

[thesometimesaint]

I've never found it particularly valuable to go to any outsider for what an insider believes. Ask me what I believe I will tell you.

 

None of Talmadge's books whatever their theological value have been accepted as Scripture(doctrine).

 

The LDS Articles of Faith were accepted as Scripture(doctrine) on 10 October 1880.

SEE https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/articles-of-faith

[will227457]

 

I hesitate to ask whether a Mormon Apostle would say the same thing.

But it would be very helpful if somebody in a position of authority

would communicate an official list of what is doctrine and what is not.

Would Talmadge's books on Christ and the Articles of Faith be official

doctrine? I suppose not.

 

But... what is?

 

UD

This is an easy one..

 

New Doctrine requires approval of the first presidency, agreement of the 12, and must be accepted by a sustaining vote by the body of the church. This has only happen 6 times int he history of the church.

 

1. 1830, Bible and Book of Mormon were officially accepted with the organization of the Church
2. 1835, Doctrine and Covenants, first 103 sections were officially accepted
3. 1880, Doctrine and Covenants additional 32 sections were accepted along with the Pearl of Great Price
4. 1890, Polygamy was repealed (Official Declaration, p. 291)
5. 1976, D&C sections 137 & 138 were officially accepted
6. 1978, The priesthood was made available to all worthy males regardless of race (Official Declaration 2, p. 292)

 

You can make the argument that anything else is a form of policy. 

Edited March 21, 2015 by will227457

[Uncle Dale]

This is an easy one..

 

New Doctrine requires approval of the first presidency, agreement of the 12, and must be accepted by a sustaining vote by the body of the church. This has only happen 6 times int he history of the church.

 

1. 1830, Bible and Book of Mormon were officially accepted with the organization of the Church
2. 1835, Doctrine and Covenants, first 103 sections were officially accepted
3. 1880, Doctrine and Covenants additional 32 sections were accepted along with the Pearl of Great Price
4. 1890, Polygamy was repealed (Official Declaration, p. 291)
5. 1976, D&C sections 137 & 138 were officially accepted
6. 1978, The priesthood was made available to all worthy males regardless of race (Official Declaration 2, p. 292)

 

You can make the argument that anything else is a form of policy. 

 

Actually, that is a very useful list and chronology. And it may help

explain something I saw on TV some years ago, on the Larry King

show. The LDS Prophet was asked whether eternal progression

towards godhood was a teaching of his church, and he declined

to state emphatically that it was.

 

If the Book of Abraham became "officially accepted" in 1880, then

I presume that the LDS doctrine in that case is that the book itself

became scripture that year -- and not that each sentence in its

text is official doctrine.

 

In a way, that sort of explanation would make sense. The Book of Job

is part of the Standard Works, and (as listed) was officially accepted

in 1830 (except for errors in translation and manipulations by the hand

of the Great and Abominable Church) -- and so that Book of Job is

scripture.

 

However, the portions of the Book of Job which relate the counsel of

Job's three friends, would NOT be the true doctrine of God, nor of

any divinely authorized church, because those passages relate some

ungodly advice and theology.

 

If that is the sort of standard we should here consider, then the passages

in the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses depicting a plurality of gods

and the precept of progression, also would NOT be the true doctrine of

the LDS Church, because the "doctrine" involved, is simply that the PGP

was "accepted" in 1880.

 

Which (finally!) brings me back to the Book of Mormon's Lehi and his

supposed transportation of things from the eastern hemisphere to

the western hemisphere. -- If I understand correctly, then the existence

of Lehi, in the first place, is NOT the true doctrine of the LDS Church,

and thus his supposed transporting of seeds, etc. to the Americas

also is NOT doctrine.

 

What IS doctrine, is that the Book of Mormon (except for any mistakes

of men included in the text) was "accepted" in 1830.

 

If I am anywhere near correct in my understanding, then I can say that

Mormons as NOT taught that a patriarch named Lehi brought things to

the ancient Americas, and that Mormons do NOT teach such an account 

as being either true doctrine, or true history.

 

Am I anywhere near correct, then, in my deductions -- which is about

where I had hoped this thread would eventually lead us in agreement?

 

UD

[thesometimesaint]

UD:

 

If it is in our Scriptures it is doctrine. The interpretation of that Scripture is not necessarily doctrine. For it to become doctrine it must be accepted by the Church. For the record very few interpretations have been accepted by the Church.

[Uncle Dale]

UD:

 

If it is in our Scriptures it is doctrine. The interpretation of that Scripture is not necessarily doctrine. For it to become doctrine it must be accepted by the Church. For the record very few interpretations have been accepted by the Church.

 

 

I am trying very hard to understand -- as this is a variety of

Latter Day Saintism that continues to remain foreign to my

way of thinking (and experience).

 

And yet, I did sit in on an occasional Seminary class in Idaho,

when I was a kid, and took Institute classes for credit during

my college days. For the better part of a year I attended an

LDS ward in Wyoming, and for more than a year, an LDS

branch in Ohio -- but, still, I am puzzled over the terminology.

 

Allow me to provide a Reorganite example, to help explain --

In the RLDS Book of Moroni, first chapter, the author offers

some counsel, possibly helpful to future Lamanites, and goes

on to say, in chapter 4, that the "manner" of the Nephites'

"priests and elders" administering the sacrament, was, according

to a certain procedure and formula, with a prayer beginning:

"O, God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee..." etc.

 

In the church I was long familiar with, these passages were taught

as being not only "true doctrine," but divine instruction -- that is to

say, the teachings IN the book and the correct teaching OF that

particular text, were all official doctrine.

 

Had I taken aside a member of the First Presidency, and asked him

whether or not the Moroni chapters were "official doctrine," I am

positive he would have answered "Yes, they certainly are." And, if

I had asked "Does our Church teach these things?" again, I'm fully

confident that the answer would have been "Yes, this is part of our

official doctrine." And, if I were to ask such an authority if my instruction

regarding the sacrament prayer, to newly ordained priests, was official

and authorized teaching (doctrine) of the Church, I know from past

experience that the answer, again, would have been yes.

 

Were the BoM passages "true doctrine?" = yes

Were they the "official doctrine" of the Church = yes

If taught according to the text, was that instruction Church doctrine = yes

 

And yet, somehow, in a way beyond my comprehension, the

same questions (if asked of a Mormon GA) among the LDS

would be answered "no."

 

Which leads me to probable absurdity. Should I ask a newly

ordained LDS priest, fresh out of the classroom, whether or

not he had been "taught" the prayer upon the bread and water,

his answer might well be "no."

 

Certainly that could not be the case, could it?

Wouldn't the instruction given to that LDS priest be a "teaching"

of his church; and a "true teaching" as well?

 

I wish I understood better; but perhaps that's not possible.

 

UD

[JAHS]

Perhaps this was already mentioned but here's what the Jaredites brought with them and therefore was already there when Lehi came:

 

Ether 2:3

And they did also carry with them deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee; and thus they did carry with them swarms of bees, and all manner of that which was upon the face of the land, seeds of every kind.

[Robert F. Smith]

As I understand the term "doctrine," Pratt's additions for the text

were doctrine, so long as they remained in the book. Once they

were denounced, renounced, or simply conceded to be less than

fully factual (by the Living Prophet and/or the quorums assembled),

they ceased to be doctrine.

 

Then again, I confessedly have a Josephite understanding of what

"doctrine" entails. I had a lengthy argument with a Mormon, a few

years ago, as to whether the 1835 D&C was the "law of the Church,"

and whether or not members during the 1835-40 period were tried

and judged in church courts, based upon the content of that book.

 

............................................................

Still playing cat-and-mouse with the Mormons, huh Dale?  You know very well that footnotes and editorial introductions have never constituted doctrine either in the RLDS or LDS Churches, nor in any of the mainstream Christian churches, so why do you raise such a silly question?

 

Then you inject questions about the BofC and of various D&C sections into the discussion as though they are the same as footnotes and headings.  Get serious, Dale.  Anyone interested in understanding the doctrinal positions of various religious organizations should have no trouble finding it.  I don't mind your humor, Dale, but this phony homespun nonsense just doesn't seem like your usual style.  What gives?

 

And, yes, I know that there are actually yokels out there who don't understand these matters, but do we really need to pander to them?

Edited March 22, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[guerreiro9]

I am trying very hard to understand -- as this is a variety of

Latter Day Saintism that continues to remain foreign to my

way of thinking (and experience).

UD

It seems as though you are being purposefully obtuse. This is not a difficult concept. The words in the canon are doctrine, all possible interpretations of the words are not. In some cases new interpretations have replaced old ones. Some interpretations have been codified as doctrine, but not all.

It is doctrine that the Lehites brought seeds with them to the new world. It is not doctrine which seeds were brought.

-guerreiro9

Edited March 22, 2015 by guerreiro9

[Robert F. Smith]

 

Perhaps this was already mentioned but here's what the Jaredites brought with them and therefore was already there when Lehi came:

 

Ether 2:3

And they did also carry with them deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee; and thus they did carry with them swarms of bees, and all manner of that which was upon the face of the land, seeds of every kind.

 

You have misread the text egregiously.  No honey bees were brought by the Jaredites to the New World, which already had honey bees and did not need imports.  Those same native honey bees were present in the Americas when Lehi and Mulek arrived.

 

Because you don't apparently read for context, you are unaware that Ether 2:3 takes place as the Jaredites are moving across Asia, long before they reach the ocean at Ether 2:13.  Proof texting is text abuse.

[Robert F. Smith]

It seems as though you are being purposefully obtuse. This is not a difficult concept. The words in the canon are doctrine, all possible interpretations of the words are not. In some cases new interpretations have replaced old ones. Some interpretations have been codified as doctrine, but not all.

It is doctrine that the Lehites brought seeds with them to the new world. It is not doctrine which seeds were brought.

-guerreiro9

When someone as intelligent as you, guerreiro, claims that seeds are theological, little wonder that Dale is confused.  Historical questions are not automatically doctrinal (theological) questions.

 

Similarly, when Satan speaks in Scripture, his lies do not constitute doctrine.  Not every "came to pass" is doctrine.  Commandments given in certain circumstances anciently are not necessarily operative now, and are therefore not doctrine.  The Scriptural Canon contains much that is not doctrine.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Uncle Dale]

It seems as though you are being purposefully obtuse. This is not a difficult concept. The words in the canon are doctrine, all possible interpretations of the words are not. In some cases new interpretations have replaced old ones. Some interpretations have been codified as doctrine, but not all.

It is doctrine that the Lehites brought seeds with them to the new world. It is not doctrine which seeds were brought.

-guerreiro9

 

 

Now I am a little less confused -- maybe.

 

If I say, "Mormons are taught that Lehi brought seeds from the Old World,"

or "Mormons teach that Lehi brought seeds from the Old World," is that OK?

 

I mean, have I accurately communicated anything, other than my own deduction?

 

If I say that the Mormon Church teaches that the Jaredites brought seeds

of every kind, from the Old World, to the New World, am I correct in making

that statement? I think that I must be...

 

Some of the posting here seem to indicate that I would be wrong in making

such statements -- but you appear to generally support what I'm trying to

get at, despite my being obtuse (just my nature, I suppose).

 

But while I have your attention, let me give one last example, just to test

whether or not my making a statement as an outsider may still be correct:

 

"It is official LDS doctrine that Jesus Christ visited the Americas after his

resurrection, and there ordained Nephite disciples."

 

If everybody agrees that I have not mis-stated what appears to me to

indeed be true, official Mormon doctrine, then I'll drop the authority

part of my investigation, and get back to what kinds of Old World plants

we can discover being introduced into the Americas in preColumbian times.

 

UD

Edited March 22, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[JAHS]

You have misread the text egregiously.  No honey bees were brought by the Jaredites to the New World, which already had honey bees and did not need imports.  Those same native honey bees were present in the Americas when Lehi and Mulek arrived.

 

Because you don't apparently read for context, you are unaware that Ether 2:3 takes place as the Jaredites are moving across Asia, long before they reach the ocean at Ether 2:13.  Proof texting is text abuse.

Well Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me.  I do understand at what time they initially took those things (bees and "seeds of every kind"). But if they carried them all the way across Asia, it makes sense to me that they would bring them with them to the American continent as well. I see nowhere in the scripture that says they did not bring them on the barges with them.

[Robert F. Smith]

Well Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me.  I do understand at what time they initially took those things (bees and "seeds of every kind"). But if they carried them all the way across Asia, it makes sense to me that they would bring them with them to the American continent as well. I see nowhere in the scripture that says they did not bring them on the barges with them.

Correct.  You are now reading with greater care.  The next step is not to make automatic assumptions not justified by the actual text.  You are of course free to speculate all you want, but label it as such.

[JAHS]

Correct.  You are now reading with greater care.  The next step is not to make automatic assumptions not justified by the actual text.  You are of course free to speculate all you want, but label it as such.

Most things people say on this board are speculation or opinion, but don't label it as such. I didn't know I was going to be pulled over by the Book of Mormon police ;-)

[guerreiro9]

When someone as intelligent as you, guerreiro, claims that seeds are theological, little wonder that Dale is confused. Historical questions are not automatically doctrinal (theological) questions.

You quibble over semantics. When an official teaching of a religious organization is codified in their canon I would refer to it as "doctrine" regardless of its theological value.

1 Nephi 18:24 certainly qualifies as doctrine in this instance.

-guerreiro9

[guerreiro9]

If everybody agrees that I have not mis-stated what appears to me to

indeed be true, official Mormon doctrine, then I'll drop the authority

part of my investigation, and get back to what kinds of Old World plants

we can discover being introduced into the Americas in preColumbian times.

UD

See Dr. Sorenson's work on Pre-Columbian diffusion. He has documented evidence of numerous transplanted plants and animals.

-guerreiro9

[Uncle Dale]

See Dr. Sorenson's work on Pre-Columbian diffusion. He has documented evidence of numerous transplanted plants and animals.

-guerreiro9

 

.

Thank you.

 

I think we're now past the "Do Mormons teach..." part, and back into

the "Do some Mormons believe..." part.

 

Your comments were most helpful.

 

UD