Setting The Record Straight

[theplains]

Doctrines of Salvation was published in 1954. Joseph Fielding Smith became President of the Church in 1970. Neither his (much later) calling, nor any other event, has ever canonised that work.

 

And waving a hand at an entire volume does not document a claim. Actual quotations are needed.

 

In a previous thread, a moderator asked me not to quote copyrighted material on this forum.

Not sure why since I provide the actual source and have been doing it for many months.  I

have never seen a restriction like this on any other poster to my knowledge. But I hope he

will allow a link to a pdf file on scribd.  It is found here.

 

There are many things written or spoken of in LDS Church history that are published in books

with titles including the term (s)  'doctrine' or 'gospel principles' but they are not canonized.

We can either accept them or wave a hand to dismiss them.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

But it has been my observation that the antipathy is generated mainly from the "Heartlander" camp more so than from others. They are the ones calling into question the faith and testimonies of those who don't go along with their pet theories.

Perhaps, but my friend Rod Meldrum (who is a member of my HP Group) hasn't called me to repentance yet -- and he knows that I buy into the Mesoamerican theory.  As I always say, our salvation does not in any way depend on which geography theory we adhere to.  Can't we all just get along?

[Robert F. Smith]

Meh, closer to central.  (But I don't want to get into any debates about geography, or anything ... )

Sorry, I've never been there.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

It's not surprising that modern LDS don't expect such a revelation from President Monson.  But it is a little sad to think how far we've come.

The Lord has done us the honor of letting us fend for ourselves.  We now have modern tools and professionals which are equal to the task.  We should rejoice at the opportunity.

[Russell C McGregor]

In a previous thread, a moderator asked me not to quote copyrighted material on this forum.

Not sure why since I provide the actual source and have been doing it for many months.  I

have never seen a restriction like this on any other poster to my knowledge. But I hope he

will allow a link to a pdf file on scribd.  It is found here.

Thank you.

Having read the link, I am satisfied that then-Elder Smith did not claim that his views on Book of Mormon geography were revealed truths, but conclusions based upon interpretations of various points of evidence.

Elder Smith also confidently predicted that humans would never set foot on the moon. When he was interviewed about that in 1970, he said, "I sure got that one wrong, didn't I?"

 

There are many things written or spoken of in LDS Church history that are published in books

with titles including the term (s)  'doctrine' or 'gospel principles' but they are not canonized.

We can either accept them or wave a hand to dismiss them.

 

Regards,

Jim

But as you know, Jim, it's not an either-or; you are indulging the fallacy of the false dilemma.

After all, you yourself do not accept them; but you don't merely dismiss them, either. Instead, you quote mine them for snippets you can exploit to advance your agenda, don't you?

Or, perhaps more accurately: you use the quotes others have mined for you, don't you?

[Russell C McGregor]

Kindly read the Preface in all three volumes of Doctrines of Salvation. You'll gain a different

perspective.

 

Regards,

Jim

No. I will not.

Maybe you and your heroes and role models, like Walter Martin, would be well advised to stop presuming that your little collection of quote-mined snippets makes you better informed than life-long Latter-day Saints.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps, but my friend Rod Meldrum (who is a member of my HP Group) hasn't called me to repentance yet -- and he knows that I buy into the Mesoamerican theory.  As I always say, our salvation does not in any way depend on which geography theory we adhere to.  Can't we all just get along?

Maybe some of his admirers could take an example from that. Alas, that hasn't been my observation in the past.

[cinepro]

Doctrines of Salvation was published in 1954. Joseph Fielding Smith became President of the Church in 1970. Neither his (much later) calling, nor any other event, has ever canonised that work.

 

 

 

You say that as if people might change their mind when a Prophet says something they don't agree with, instead of an Apostle saying something they don't agree with.  

 

From what I can tell, if someone doesn't want to believe something, it doesn't matter who said it, or where, or what their calling was when they said it.    

Edited October 1, 2015 by cinepro

[The Nehor]

You say that as if people might change their mind when a Prophet says something they don't agree with, instead of an Apostle saying something they don't agree with.  From what I can tell, if someone doesn't want to believe something, it doesn't matter who said it, or where, or what their calling was when they said it.

But Comrade Napoleon is always right.

[Russell C McGregor]

You say that as if people might change their mind when a Prophet says something they don't agree with, instead of an Apostle saying something they don't agree with.

No, I say that as if "credential inflation" was a standard anti-Mormon practice. Which it is.

From what I can tell, if someone doesn't want to believe something, it doesn't matter who said it, or where, or what their calling was when they said it.

While in other news, rather a lot of Utahns who wanted the Church to ditch scouting seem to have changed their minds when the Church decided to continue with it for the time being.

[cinepro]

No, I say that as if "credential inflation" was a standard anti-Mormon practice. Which it is.

Perhaps a interesting exercise would be to review the series of lesson manuals produced for Priesthood and RS instruction under the banner "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church"

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents?lang=eng

 

Do these manuals consist solely of the teachings of the Presidents while they were President, or are teachings from their Apostolic days also included?  If their pre-Presidential teachings are included, are students informed that those teachings were taught under a different mantle and thus should be treated differently?

 

If not, why not?  If what you say is correct, it could be very important to know which is which!

Edited October 4, 2015 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps a interesting exercise would be to review the series of lesson manuals produced for Priesthood and RS instruction under the banner "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church"

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents?lang=eng

 

Do these manuals consist solely of the teachings of the Presidents while they were President, or are teachings from their Apostolic days also included?  If their pre-Presidential teachings are included, are students informed that those teachings were taught under a different mantle and thus should be treated differently?

 

If not, why not?  If what you say is correct, it could be very important to know which is which!

Do these manuals contain an exhaustive compilation of each respective Church president's teachings, or do they merely contain selections chosen according to what the Brethren want to see emphasized in priesthood and Relief Society in any given year?

 

I ask, because it could make a difference when considering your implication that all teachings of a given Church leader are of equal importance or validity.

 

By the way, the correct title of the series is Teachings of Presidents of the Church, not "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church." I recognized this distinction after making the same error you did for a couple of years.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[theplains]

Having read the link, I am satisfied that then-Elder Smith did not claim that his views on Book of Mormon geography were revealed truths, but conclusions based upon interpretations of various points of evidence.

 

I think he was one of the fifteen Apostles at the time.  Yet he felt that his conclusions were deemed

'doctrines of salvation' to be published in a book.  He never recanted his teachings in that book to

my knowledge.

 

Or, perhaps more accurately: you use the quotes others have mined for you, don't you?

 

There are many words and speeches of the LDS apostles available through books published by

www.ldsces.org, General Conference talks, Bookcraft Publishers and the Deseret Book Company

(obtainable if someone is selling via either Ebay, Amazon, or Confetti Books).

 

It did take a while for me to read some of the books, scan some pages, paste them into MS Word,

and then convert them into PDF format. Some that I have purchased over the years are "Answers

to Gospel Questions - 5 volume set", "The Way to Perfection", "Doctrines of Salvation", "Articles of

Faith", "Lectures on Faith", "The Progress of Man", "Gospel Doctrine", "Religion 430-431- Doctrines

of the Gospel Student Manual, and the standard works.

 

Regards,

Jim

[cinepro]

By the way, the correct title of the series is Teachings of Presidents of the Church, not "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church." I recognized this distinction after making the same error you did for a couple of years.

 

How embarrassing that they've gotten it wrong all these years. 

[livy111us]

Joseph Fielding Smith also pointed towards BOM events and peoples in Mesoamerica (not that it matters all that much because there are countless other Prophets and Apostles that solely taught a Mesoamerican setting).
In Doctrines of Salvation 3:73-74, Smith mentions Lehi landing in Central America.

 

"The history of this American continent also gives evidence that the Lamanites have risen up in their anger and vexed the Gentiles. This warfare may not be over. It has been the fault of people in the United States to think that this prophetic saying has reference to the Indians in the United States, but we must remember that there are millions of the 'remnant' in Mexico, Central and South America" (Church History and Modern Revelation 2:127

[PeterPear]

Joseph Fielding Smith also pointed towards BOM events and peoples in Mesoamerica (not that it matters all that much because there are countless other Prophets and Apostles that solely taught a Mesoamerican setting).

In Doctrines of Salvation 3:73-74, Smith mentions Lehi landing in Central America.

"The history of this American continent also gives evidence that the Lamanites have risen up in their anger and vexed the Gentiles. This warfare may not be over. It has been the fault of people in the United States to think that this prophetic saying has reference to the Indians in the United States, but we must remember that there are millions of the 'remnant' in Mexico, Central and South America" (Church History and Modern Revelation 2:127

Then this can't be correct either, because Joseph Fielding Smith was only an Apostle when this was mentioned, per the logic of Scott Lloyd and Russell McGregor.

But if you knew your Book of Mormon, Nephi foresaw the seed of his brethren, after destroying his seed, went forth in multitudes upon the face of the land (1 Nephi 12:20) ; meaning the Lamanites could have later mingled with the Maya and other American civilizations which preceded the Nephite nation, thus the millions in Mexico, Central and South America becoming the 'remnant' Pres. or Apostle Smith is speaking of, i.e. from the title page of the Book of Mormon.

The text indicates the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites, on the south, east and west leaving the Northern lands as a place of refuge. Then of course the 300-400 years of peace (4 Nephi) then the same conditions occurred, the Nephites fled north, ending up in Cumorah, NY for their final battle. So when Pres. Smith speaks of both remnants, the "Indians in North America" and the remnants in Mexico, Central and South America, the latter he was referring to he could be when the Lamanites went forth during the time period from 420AD to the discovery of America/Restoration of Gospel - which 1 Nephi 12:20 is referring to.

Edited October 4, 2015 by PeterPear

[PeterPear]

Thank you.

Having read the link, I am satisfied that then-Elder Smith did not claim that his views on Book of Mormon geography were revealed truths, but conclusions based upon interpretations of various points of evidence.

Elder Smith also confidently predicted that humans would never set foot on the moon. When he was interviewed about that in 1970, he said, "I sure got that one wrong, didn't I?"

I always love it when someone nitpicks by referring to this incident. Pres. Smith was being sarcastic in his reply to avoid contending. He never admitted he was wrong.

Ever heard of the 2005 NASA Constellation project, to return men to the moon within 15 years by 2020?

15 years? when it took 9 years with 1960s technology?

Here are some of the problems admitted by NASA:

Space radiation outside of LEO:

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/24jun_electrostatics/

Don't breath moon dust!

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/22apr_dontinhale/

Dangers of moon dust on spacesuits; wore threw 3 layers of Kevlar on the moon boots, inside the lunar lander, dust to everyrhing, the astronauts walking, falling down, on lunar surface, in the 1970s, no one concerned then about the puncture of pressurized suits and Apollo astronauts dying on the moon:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080924191552.htm

Fake moon rock:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

Pres. Smith was wrong.

40 years ago NASA sent men to the moon and all returned safely, but it can't be done today.

All the problems were overcome then, but not now. Sure.

"This is Houston Control. We now return the discussion to Book of Mormon geography theories."

"Err ... Roger!"

[sdrencure]

While not purporting to have unique insight on any particular BoM location theory, to respond to the question, particularly interesting is the gargantuan-scale ancient copper mining in Michigan -- Isle Royale & the Keweenaw Peninsula primarily.  In my mind, thousands of ancient mines that extracted hundreds of thousands of tons of copper -- this is more likely Jaredite and/or Nephite/Mulekite in nature.  One of many websites on this is: http://www.philipcoppens.com/copper.html

[livy111us]

PeterPear,

How many times have you been banned from this message board? I believe you've been kicked 5 times now for your discussion without using reasoning, ignoring of evidence produced by others, name-calling, continue to argue points that others proved wrong, etc... So I'm not too interested in showing the major flaws in the "arguments" you've made here. Once you get kicked (again), I'm sure you'll be back soon with a new name, but same ol' tactics and arguments. Good luck with that.

[ERayR]

I always love it when someone nitpicks by referring to this incident. Pres. Smith was being sarcastic in his reply to avoid contending. He never admitted he was wrong.

 

You know this How?