[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]But in the case of the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, and the restored gospel, I say they are true. I know they are true through testimony of the spirit of God.
Following the spirit of God, not of contention.[/quote]
OK maybe you should read the Islamic texts then.
All belivers in their religion claim to belive that they read is true. They all claim they are true through testimony of the spirit of God.
SO what else is new?
…, therefore, no religion is the correct one.
but Mormons can call themselves Christians if they want. Christianity is a wide church. even Bahai could be christians by that token, i guess.
So you say.
Not just a witness to the translation, but actually said he saw the plates and handled them through an angelic ministration.
And while out of the church he continued to support his testimony, never denied it.
You must be joking…Blatant lies are to be accepted?[/quote]
Unfortunately, I know you aren’t joking. You’re serious, but not making any effort to understand the issue.
The whole question of the geography model is not a matter of truth, but of speculation. One group says they believe it is X, the other group say they believe it is Y. Neither group claims their particular model is revealed truth, just what they think based on what they know.
You believe Joseph Smith is a fraud. We get that. But not every issue is about whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet. There are other valid criticisms that are not based on that.
Don’t need to look there…in fact, never have. Rather a lame attempt to discredit the facts.[/quote]
I’m pointing out that using anti-Mormon sources to try and get a fair idea of what’s going on in the Mormon church will not be a very accurate view of the overall picture.
I mentioned those two since Fortigurn posted one link directly to mormonwiki.org and at least one of the quotes came from exmormon.com.
I don’t really care much about which specific place you are getting your sources, but it’s certainly not pro-Mormon.
Irrelevant to whether or not Mormons know LDS doctrine? Certainly most relevant. Not a strong argument, though, since I’m only one person, but at least anecdotal.
You keep saying “false prophet”, but saying it more times doesn’t make it any more true. Joesph Smith is a true prophet and the Book of Mormon is the word of God.
Yes, it is. If you were sincerely interested in understanding I’d discuss this with you and give quotes from the Bible to show it. But since you clearly are not, it would be of no benefit.
For the sake of this discussion, I’ll just say that the Bible says that the saints will be joint-heirs with Christ. All the Father has is given to the Son and all the faithful will receive that through Christ. That’s definitely a Biblical teaching.
Actually, this revelation was given because Joseph Smith was wondering that same thing. How could the ancient prophets practice polygamy and not be committing adultery? So, God explained it to him. Abraham was righteous, despite having multiple wives because all his wives were given to him by God and it was marriage. But if you go outside of marriage, it is adultery.
No, it was a simple way of saying, “this is something we’re not sure about.”
On the contrary, people are encouraged to inquire, think, and pray. But you shouldn’t promote your own personal opinion as doctrine.
On the contrary, I’ve already responded. There are false prophets. But Joseph Smith is a true prophet.
Ring a bell?..but the Mormons have many becoming Gods…how does that work?[/quote]
Well, you don’t put any other gods before God. Obviously.
They’d be doing far better to chuck the BofM into the recycle Bin and follow the good book alone. Which is precisely what you are saying when you remove the black cloud of the BofM as scriptural writings.[/quote]
You’d be better off reading and abiding by the words of the Book of Mormon, the words of God, than denying them and hardening your heart against the truth. You should repent of your pride and false belief, listening to the whisperings of the devil to lead you to rebel against the spirit of God and to resist the truth.
The Book of Mormon is the word of God. I know this because it was revealed to me by the Spirit of God.
Yes everybody claims that their book is the word of god. We have all had visions about it.
I have had things revealed to me by the spirit of god too.
Just which god that is I shall leave that up to you speculate on… but hey I’m telling ya… you had better believe in my book of XXXXXXXXXXXX as it is the word of god.
I shall reveal my religion to you in due course.
But RDO you do just that. You put your god before all other gods.
The body of man is gods temple as all men are gods.
[color=green][b]MODERATOR’S NOTE: Gentlemen, repeating your assertions
ad nauseam
about whether or not Mormon beliefs agree with or conflict with YOUR faith and assertions as to whether they involve true prophecy or false prophecy clearly isn’t going to go anywhere.
Please restrain yourselves unless you have something NEW and CONSTRUCTIVE to add to the discussion. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. [/b][/color]
Unfortunately not always.
How do you know what’s official and what’s speculation? And why is this permitted?
It’s clear that this just doesn’t happen most of the time, or even ‘often times’. There are thousands of LDS members out there who believe that what they’ve been taught in their church is true, when you would be the first to tell me that it’s really just speculation.
I see little to no evidence that things not considered doctrine are discouraged from being taught. I don’t see anyone discouraging FAIR or FARMS, do you? I see no evidence that the identification of the Cumorah of New York with the Cumorah of the Book of Mormon was discouraged from being taught. On the contrary, it was held by the Church and taught as held by the Church.
Not just them, but even the identification of Cumorah and the location of the events of the Book of Mormon.
Clearly neither FARMS nor FAIR contradict with official doctrine, since everything they write they repeated openly and do not keep to themselves.
It’s not ironic, it’s a fact. What I find ironic is that you’re now embracing the idea, when previously you treated it with skepticism.
No, saying that the concept of Internet LDS and Chapel LDS is widely accepted within the LDS Church does not mean that it is an official position of the Church.
I certainly agree. That doesn’t change the fact that this concept of Internet LDS and Chapel LDS is widely accepted within the LDS Church.
I don’t see a functional difference between what you said and what they said.
But both FAIR and FARMS promote what they say as truth, not speculation.
On the contrary, it doesn’t matter to you but it clearly matters to a large number of LDS members. It matters to them that they have been taught X for years and then they are told to believe Y. It matters to them that they’re taught X as ‘official Church doctrine’ in their local church, whereas when they get online they find FAIR and FARMS teaching something completely different. This matters.
This looks official to me.
I just don’t see any evidence that they considered this ‘unambiguous doctrine’. The same goes for FAIR and FARMS.
Then why are so many LDS members taught to believe things which aren’t in the standard works? And what about FAIR and FARMS?
No that’s not the reason. The reason is that FAIR and FARMS often teach the opposite of what LDS members have been taught in church as ‘official Church’ doctrine.
I think you’re neglecting the role of the GAs. And you’re also failing to explain why FAIR and FARMS can continue to operate.
But you’re not even in a position to tell me what those core doctrines are.
But you’re not the one who gets to determine what the grey areas are.
No, I deliberately spend most of my time on FAIR and FARMS, and LDS owned forums and blogs. Just look at the links I provided.
The problem is that the LDS Church rests on traditional doctrinal teachings which go well beyond ‘Have faith in God, pray and read your scriptures every day, don’t break the commandments, love God and your neighbor’.
Of course, smarter people are no better off. They’re maybe even more likely to put their faith in their own learning and forget about relying on God.[/quote]
No… history backs up the statement.
[quote]It all has become a second nature to me; and I feel, like Paul, to glory in etribulation; for to this day has the God of my fathers delivered me out of them all, and will deliver me from henceforth; for behold, and lo, I shall triumph over all my enemies,
for the Lord God hath spoken it.Doctrine and Covenants, 127:2[/quote]
Note the bolded text?..Dead two years later. Refer to Deuteronomy in case of confusion.
Propehcying the coming of Christ? Blew that one too…
Broke a commandment at the same time. I’d say it was #3…you might wish to disagree…neither here nor there. There is some wiggle room if you want to go to town on that though…
Funny stuff…
Good ol’ Deuteronomy to keep the story straight.
Short and Sweet.
Goodness Gracious ME!!! OF course it is THE singular MOST valid point!! Without a charlatan leading people away from the Christian faith while obfuscating it with malarkey…it is truly key. I know , I know…you read the doctrines and have been fully brainwashed…I Edit the rest for the sake of sensitivity…
The overall picture is clear as day…a bunch of people following a False Prophet…nothing more or less. It is clearly written in the bible and history backs that up.
You have a problem with Fact and Fiction? That is clear. The Mormon faith is based on works of Fiction/ Fantasy. Nothing else.
Clearly it is NOT. As the Bible which is supposed to stand side by side with the BofM does not in any way shape or form lend credence to the Mormon claims…not one little tiny bit. In fact, if anything…it utterly annihilates it.
Asked you before for such,you are clearly unable to deliver such…so banter gently making assumptions…how false of you.
Doesn’t cut it. Scripture only. Personal anecdotes/ interpretations and the like are of no consequence.
Incorrect. Was not a revelation. Was baloney. Drove Whitmer out of the LDS and till his dying days never returned…in fact, went out of his way to lead the path back to Christ.
Smith and the LDS are extremely guilt of precisely that…history is replete with it.
Well…you see…that IS NOT obvious…when there is supposed to be
ONLY ONE. No confusion in the bible about that at all!!
You’re kidding right? The devil is found in False Prophets…and Smith even admitted it himself…hmmmmmm?
Quite clearly and Factually it IS NOT…but you can’t keep on repeating that mantra to yourself…doesn’t change the Facts.
Mormons are not Christians by the simple Virtue of the Fact that they follow a False Prophet. If you consult the Holy Bible…it will state that ever so clearly. Might want to put down the BofM first…
SD, I would recommend that you address the LDS claims concerning Smiths’ revelation and translation using their own material. It’s enough that you’ll find the LDS Church claiming that the eyewitnesess of the ‘translation’ process validate Smith’s claims, whereas you’ll find FARMS articles dismissing these eyewitnesses as unreliable and useless as a validation of Smith’s claims. FARMS does this without any rebuke or correction from the LDS Church. That says it all.
Unfortunately not always.[/quote]
But by far the majority of the time.
You seem to have this impression of LDS church meetings repeating a lot of this relatively obscure stuff in meetings. Seriously, that’s not what happens. I’ve attended in multiple meeting houses in Utah, North Carolina, Virginia, and Hong Kong, as well as one in Maine. My personal experience is that outside discussion is very limited and the official church curriculum focuses very much on core doctrines.
How do you know what’s official and what’s speculation? And why is this permitted?[/quote]
I know what’s official and what’s speculation by whether or not what is being said can be found in the standard works or comes from a talk in General Conference.
Keep in mind, that when I say “speculation” I don’t mean that it cannot be inspired. But in such a case a Mormon is counseled to pray about such things for themselves rather than just blindly believing anything they hear from someone in church, including General Authorities.
Why is speculation permitted? People are free to think their own thoughts. They are not free to teach it as doctrine, and if they are found to be doing so and continue to do so after being warned not to they can find themselves in trouble.
Clear from what? Internet blogs? I think your sample size is insufficient. I’ve arguably met more LDS than you have online and offline, and I see things differently.
I’d tell them that if it can’t be found in the standard works then they should rely on God to know if something is true or not. But if they are looking at something like from FARMS or FAIR then it is most certainly speculation since it is not based on revelation. And they should understand that when they are reading these things.
I don’t think you actively attend LDS meetings. If you are judging things from the internet you are getting just one side of the picture.
Of course not. There’s nothing wrong with FAIR or FARMS.
But you aren’t going to find anything from FAIR or FARMS taught from the pulpit or in Sunday School class, or anything else for that matter. If it is mentioned, it will be a lay-member bringing it up and not anything official.
The official position of the Church is that it believes the location of the Hill Cumorah to be in New York. However, this is a case of it not being considered revealed truth. You won’t find that in the standard works. So, if the Book of Mormon apologists think the official church position might be wrong, that’s ok. They aren’t arguing against something considered doctrine, just merely an official position held from a position of tradition, not as something authoritatively binding.
As I mentioned earlier, the Church does take official positions on some issues that are not matters of doctrine, but only as a reference. Most of the time the Church has no official position, or the official position is very broad and varying opinions would still be possible.
More than once I’ve heard a General Authority give a general answer to a specific question.
Mostly correct. Few things said by scholars in FARMS or FAIR go against official doctrine. They are free to speculate on things as they wish, and even contradict traditional thinking. The only thing that is certain is revealed truth. Everything else is subject to human error.
However, more than one Mormon scholar has gotten into trouble by trying to popularize a belief and promote it as true against the counsel of the Church. They can publish it as research, but there are limits.
The LDS Church does not have any official position on “chapel Mormons” and “internet Mormons”. That is a fact. It was ironic that you would use the capital ‘C’ in that situation.
Nor am I any more accepting of the distinction than before. I believe it to be a false dichotomy. That doesn’t mean I won’t go along with the terms for the sake of discussion.
Internet Mormonism is intellectualism expressed through the internet. It is not inherently bad, but can be problematic when people forget to turn to God for their understanding. Much that is on the internet is way outside standard LDS teachings and on one’s own it is quite easy to misunderstand or fail to discern what is inspired and what was not. It’s best to rely on the Lord for understanding.
Sorry, that’s not a fact. The concept of Internet and Chapel LDS is itself mostly an internet phenomenon. Within the LDS Church most people don’t make that distinction.
It’s not that I deny that there aren’t Mormons who take their beliefs from internet writings. It’s that I don’t see them as being some sort of distinct group. There are always intellectuals (and many more pseudo-intellectuals) who embrace beliefs that are not official. As long as they remain faithful to the Lord there’s no problem in that, even if some of the things they come to believe will eventually turn out to be false.
The problem comes when people start choosing their own beliefs over revealed truth (and trying to teach that as more correct), and relying on scholarship and ignoring inspiration and revelation.
They promote it as scholarship, and their choice of wording shows they acknowledge that they can be wrong on things. A lot of what they say they qualify, especially when it comes to matters of doctrine.
This geography question is most certainly not official doctrine of the church. It is an official position (Hill Cumorah location), but not revealed truth. It is not in the standard works and not stated definitively from General Conference.
I think you meant, ambiguous, right? But the church doesn’t claim to know this is true. It is just the position of the church. Because the reason this is an official church position is that the prophet said he believed it to be the location, not that he was told it was the location.
And sorry, this is basically a memo from a secretary (not a prophet, seer, or revelator). Sure, it’s an official letter, but it does not establish official doctrine. It only repeats what has been said elsewhere.
Taught by whom? You say the Church teaches it, well how and from what sources?
They don’t teach. They research and publish what they think.
Give me an example.
I believe you are taking serious liberties with what is official church doctrine. There is no official doctrine on Book of Mormon geography. Anything about that topic is speculation. Period.
Once again, only what is found in the Standard Works and conference editions of the Ensign (with conditions-- meaning, it must be made explicit) is official church doctrine.
Perhaps you would receive something from FAIR over my personal statements?
fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/W … ctrine.pdf
(BTW, I think the document errs in calling that form of argument a straw man argument. I think it’s actually a form of fallacious appeal to authority.)
No, I’m not. General Authorities preside over the church and see to its operation. Most of them are not ordained as prophets. The Quorum of the 12 Apostles and the First Presidency are only some of the General Authorities. However, they don’t make doctrine on their own, either. Only pronouncements of the entire First Presidency or the full Quorum of the 12 have official status. Then for it to be truly canonical, it must be sustained by ratification of the Church in Conference.
Why shouldn’t they? They’re dealing with scholarship. They aren’t contradicting doctrine. If they were upsetting the Brethren (Brethren with a capital ‘B’ means the General Authorities) you think they’d be invited to become part of the Church sponsored university? Doesn’t that suggest that the things they are researching are not considered official doctrine if it conflicts with tradition?
Not as an authority figure. But I know what the doctrines are and I know what is official or not. You can believe me or not, your choice, but you’ll get pretty much the same response from someone from FARMS, FAIR, or one of the General Authorities.
Go ahead. Ask them.
Grey areas are determined by there being a lack of revealed truth, a lack of official pronouncement. I’m well versed in the Standard Works and paid attention to any conference talk where there was a prophet speaking.
Alright. I noticed some quotes from those sources (exmormon/mormonwiki), and I was responding to the link to mormonwiki specifically. But, I have no doubt that some LDS bloggers are going to say things like that. Still, if you want to get a balanced opinion, I suggest you attend about 100 LDS church services in about 10 different locations and take note on what’s being taught and how much mention “internet Mormonism” gets. 
What do you mean by “rests on”?
Seriously, what you see on the internet is not at all representative of the Church. Mostly you see comments from anti-Mormon sources, or Mormon responses to those comments, or on the other hand you see stuff from research groups. It’s atypical.
Your concept of what is Mormon doctrine does not agree with mine, and I’m going to have to make the claim that I have a better idea of it than you. I grew up in it, lived it, studied it, and I spent a good bit of time online poking through all the far-out things people talk about. I went to seminary, BYU religion classes, and was the home teacher of one of the General Authorities for about a year.
Not saying this to brag, but giving my background so you can understand the basis of my claim.
In that case then the majority of beliefs held by LDS members are an accurate representation of the LDS Church’s beliefs.
Not at all. And I know it’s not ‘relatively obscure stuff’ because of all the LDS members who tell me they believe it.
This isn’t actually helping to answer the question. It would help if you were someone in sufficient authority to give an answer.
This is clearly not the case.
But that’s just your own personal standard. And if they rely on God to know if it’s true, and as a result they are convinced God has revealed it’s true, then you can’t say anything. It’s true and you were wrong.
Can you provide any evidence that FAIR and FARMS represent their teachings as mere speculation which are not supposed to be taken seriously or believed by any members?
Not in the least. The Internet provides a very well balanced picture of what’s happening in the LDS Church. There are thousands of LDS members out there filling the Internet with useful information on the subject.
[quote]Of course not. There’s nothing wrong with FAIR or FARMS.
Oh but I am, and it is. Surely you’re familiar with John L Sorensen’s work, and how it has influenced official LDS Church doctrine?
Here’s the rub. You’re telling me that the official position of the LDS Church may or may not be true, and that individual members have to figure it out for themselves. That means the entire Church is unreliable.
But this is a matter of doctrine, and an official position has been taken.
Why would they be permitted by the LDS Church to promote error and to inform both LDS members and non-members that the true interpretation of LDS doctrine is X, Y or Z, if that’s not actually true?
But if the LDS Church isn’t the ultimate arbiter of truth, then why should any individual care about what they say? You’re trying to have it both ways. Either the LDS Church is in a position to determine truth, or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then it should keep its nose out of the beliefs of individuals.
I didn’t say it did.
Then you are not facing reality.
No it isn’t. As many articles on the subject have demonstrated and explained, it doesn’t even have to do with the Internet. There are many Internet Mormons who aren’t even on the Internet. The Internet is simply the medium in which it is most visible.
I gave you half a dozen links and at least a dozen quotes substantiating this as a fact. Within the LDS Church this distinction is widely recognized.
That is not what Internet Mormonism is. This suggests strongly that you have not read what I wrote or what I linked to.
But you have no idea if they are ignoring inspiration or revelation.
They promote it as scholarship, and their choice of wording shows they acknowledge that they can be wrong on things.[/quote]
They promote it as truth, not speculation.
This is saying that X is both P and not-P simultaneously.
Well no, you’ve not. That’s a direct statement from the LDS Church insisting that this is what the LDS Church has always taught. That’s as ‘official’ as it gets.
But if both the prophet and the Church are wrong, then what possible authority can either of them have on this issue? You’re telling me that your opinion is superior to both the Church and the prophet. If you know more than the Church and the prophet, then why aren’t you a General Authority or prophet? Whatever happened to ‘Follow the prophet’ and ‘If I could hie to Kolob’?
This is particularly disingenuous. It is an official LDS Church communication, expressing the consistently held and taught LDS Church view on the subject. For you to come and tell me what you think they meant by it is simply irrelevant.
I’ve already given the sources.
They don’t teach. They research and publish what they think.[/quote]
This again is completely disingenuous. They don’t teach? Of course they teach.
I gave you several.
Since this is contrary to what I read in official LDS Church communications, and contrary to what I read on LDS apologetic sites which are approved by the LDS Church (especially FAIR and FARMS), I’ll have to dismiss it. You’re just not in a position to define official church doctrine. You’re a non-practicing lapsed member.
Well no I can’t, firstly because you’re not authorised to tell me what is and isn’t representative of LDS doctrine, and secondly because you’ve already told me that FAIR and FARMS aren’t either. Only the standard works can do that, remember?
[quote](BTW, I think the document errs in calling that form of argument a straw man argument. I think it’s actually a form of fallacious appeal to authority.)
From LDS Church literature I have read, that is clearly untrue. Did you read the appeal made to the GAs in the letter I posted?
But they are, and have. Look at what has been said about the eyewitnesses to the ‘translation’ process.
No it doesn’t, and I know they aren’t.
[quote]Not as an authority figure. But I know what the doctrines are and I know what is official or not. You can believe me or not, your choice, but you’ll get pretty much the same response from someone from FARMS, FAIR, or one of the General Authorities.
Go ahead. Ask them.[/quote]
But that’s not what I get. There’s nothing there which contradicts what I’ve said. They certainly didn’t simply say ‘It has to be in the standard works’. They said things like ‘J. Reuben Clark explains that when “we, ourselves, are ‘moved by the Holy Ghost,’” then we know that the speakers are teaching true doctrine’, and ‘We are not forced to accept teachings with which we disagree’, both of which clearly exclude the standard works as the yardstick of true doctrine.
Not only that, but teachers such as Sorensen and other FAIR/FARMS apologists repeatedly make the claim that their positions are supported by the standard works, and are in fact the correct interpretation of the standard works. Of course previous generations of LDS teachers also claimed that their positions were supported by the standard works. So a simple appeal to ‘the standard works’ doesn’t really work.
But it has been the official teaching of the LDS Church that the standard works indicate that key events of the Book of Mormon took place in North America. That’s what they claimed the standard works said. What you’re demonstrating is what I’ve already identified, that the LDS Church itself cannot agree on what the standard works actually say, which makes them functionally useless as a measurement of true doctrine.
These are LDS members who attend LDS church services. It’s a lot easier to read what they’re saying. It’s an excellent reflection of what the man in the pew thinks.
Is dependent on.
It very clearly is. I have the choice of deciding whether one lapsed lay member is a representative of the Church, or dozens of online LDS sources, both official and personal. I’ll take the latter for obvious reasons.
[quote]Your concept of what is Mormon doctrine does not agree with mine, and I’m going to have to make the claim that I have a better idea of it than you. I grew up in it, lived it, studied it, and I spent a good bit of time online poking through all the far-out things people talk about. I went to seminary, BYU religion classes, and was the home teacher of one of the General Authorities for about a year.
Not saying this to brag, but giving my background so you can understand the basis of my claim.[/quote][/quote][/quote]
I understand your claim, but you’re clearly out of touch with the group. You’re not even familiar with the Internet/Chapel Mormon distinction, which was actually first observed and documented before people had access to the Internet. I receive far better, far more current, and far more authoritative information from a wide variety and range of online LDS sources, both official and personal.
Context.
While the testimony of the 3 witnesses and the testimony of the 8 witnesses are a rather powerful evidence that there actually was a set of gold plates (much stronger than if there were no witnesses), it’s not of much use in a modern debate. It doesn’t amount to proof and a skeptic can dismiss it as a conspiracy, if not by other means.
But where is this FARMS article that dismisses the witnesses?
I looked myself, but couldn’t find it. I found the opposite:
farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=21& … ranscripts
fairlds.org/apol/ai109.html
Could you find the FARMS or FAIR article where these organizations trash the witnesses, or dismiss them? Are you sure they weren’t actually responding to such criticism-- apologetics?
Context.[/quote]
The context is the translation process. You’re now going to change the subject to the claims regarding those who alleged to have seen the plates themselves.
[quote]While the testimony of the 3 witnesses and the testimony of the 8 witnesses are a rather powerful evidence that there actually was a set of gold plates (much stronger than if there were no witnesses), it’s not of much use in a modern debate. It doesn’t amount to proof and a skeptic can dismiss it as a conspiracy, if not by other means.[/quoe]
It’s not powerful evidence of any such thing, since according to LDS accounts not all of the witnesses actually saw the plates. In fact it is difficult even for LDS apologists to determine exactly how many ‘witnesses’ saw the plates or not. Upon close examination a number of them saw wrapping covering what they were told were the plates, and others only claimed to have ‘seen’ the plates in a spiritual sense (as in a vision), without being an actual eye witness.
I linked to it in the post which you appear not to have read. I thought you had read it, because you agreed with the conclusions.
Not really. LDS Church beliefs are clearly defined in the Standard Works and given as pronouncements in Conference. I have no doubt that there are beliefs beyond doctrine that is held by a majority of the lay church members.
But, do you think you have any idea what the majority of beliefs held by LDS members are?
Most of it is quite obscure, based on a few quotes in non-canonical sources. Mormons often get surprised by such quotes.
I already gave you a link to the FAIR article which quotes multiple General Authorities saying the exact same thing. I’m sure I heard the same thing in General Conference.
This is clearly not the case.[/quote]
Bald assertion. I disagree adamantly based on my personal experience.
No, that’s the standard given from General Authorities speaking in an official capacity. Let me give you an official source (not doctrinal, but it is issued by the Church):
newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng … n-doctrine
What? Sorry, not getting what you’re trying to say here.
Do you mean, if someone believes something is true cause they believe God told them it was true, that makes it official Church doctrine?
No, it just means they believe it to be true. Official doctrine remains unchanged.
Can you provide any evidence that FAIR and FARMS represent their teachings as mere speculation which are not supposed to be taken seriously or believed by any members?[/quote]
Er, that’s putting a twist on my words. Of course they want to be taken seriously, and they are most certainly doing their best to try and give correct answers. However, they say they are not official.
FARMS was recently put under the umbrella of the Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, but I don’t see any claims that it says it is authoritative. And the FARMS “official doctrine” .pdf I linked earlier should clear up the matter of if they think they are authoritative or not.
Depends on what sites you visit. FARMS and FAIR is not a good indication, yet being very pro-Church.
[quote]Of course not. There’s nothing wrong with FAIR or FARMS.
I’m well aware of this. Are you aware that the introductory page is not revealed? Official LDS Church doctrine has not changed. The wording of an introduction (not the actual Book of Mormon itself) changed slightly.
If it isn’t revealed as truth from God, yes, it is fallible. That’s the difference between official doctrine and an official position.
For things that are not revealed by God, the Church may sometimes take a position-- although usually there is no official position. In that case, people may err.
The true location of Hill Cumorah is not claimed to be a sure thing by the Church.
Who are you to say what Mormon doctrine is? You’re not even Mormon.
It’s not doctrine, but the Church has a position based on tradition. This is an atypical case. In most cases, the Church wouldn’t actually take an official position.
What error? You are claiming there’s some sort of disagreement between FARMS and official doctrine. There isn’t one that I know of. As I said earlier, Book of Mormon geography is not revealed.
The Church is not omniscient. It doesn’t claim to be. It only knows what God reveals. The Church is not perfect because it is composed of imperfect people. It only claims to know what is true when it comes from God.
On issues where there is no revelation, the Church tends to be silent. It “keeps its nose out of the beliefs of individuals”, as you put it. However, there are some traditions, and if you ask the Church for its opinion, it will give it if it has one. When taught in Church, such opinions are spoken with proper qualification.
The Church does not teach the Hill Cumorah is the same one that the battle in the Book of Mormon took place at. It says, “we believe it is” or “it may be”. Really, that’s how it was taught to me. So when I found out about the limited geography and the research saying that the site of the battle took place further south, I had no problems accepting that possibility.
No, I just perceive the reality as being different than as you put it.
No it isn’t.[/quote]
Yes it is. It was called intellectualism before Dr. Shades coined the terms. I said myself that “internet Mormonism” existed before the internet.
Bull. Your dozen quotes is people discussing it on the internet. You haven’t been to an LDS meeting, but you think you know what’s going on inside the LDS church.
Sorry, your source is way skewed. Get a real source, cause your sample is the internet talking about “internet Mormons”. Biased sample.
I read it. I’m just characterizing it in light of the modern information age. Whereas before the literati of the Mormon world would get their concepts of “deep doctrine” (which, isn’t actually doctrine at all) from reading outside sources, the modern “internet Mormon” reads it online and goes to discussion forums.
Irrelevant. I don’t claim to. My statement here was not about what is or is not official doctrine, or even the truth, it’s about the pitfall of pride applied to intellectual pursuits combined with theology.
They promote it as scholarship, not truth.
This is saying that X is both P and not-P simultaneously.[/quote]
Nope.
Not all positions of the church are doctrine. That’s a distinction you don’t seem to get here. The Church has some positions based on tradition, not revealed truth. Anything from revealed truth is doctrine. Things that are not revealed truth are not doctrine, but can still be a position of the Church.
Absolutely not. It is not something that was taught as true. It was taught as a maybe. It’s an official gray area.
To be “as official as it gets” it would need to be canonized. A step below that would be a proclamation from the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12, but not sustained. A step below that would not actually be doctrine (but could still be official), being a statement in an official capacity by a general authority. A step below that would be an authorized reply from someone working at Church Headquarters.
That’s what that letter is. It’s not from a GA, it’s from an assistant. And the assistant wasn’t making doctrine, he was repeating what the traditional position of the church has been.
Who said they were wrong? But they can be wrong. They will tell you they can be wrong. And they claim no authority when they are not speaking the will of the Lord.
Where did I say anything of the sort?
Now, I may have had a superior opinion about the NBA this year. President Monson might have picked LA to go all the way, but I called Boston as soon as I heard they got KG. And maybe I’ll find a hill and think that’s the real Cumorah, and it will turn out that I’m right.
But that’s just cause we’re all human and can make mistakes.
On issues where God has spoken through his prophets, then there’s no question of what is correct or not.
I’ve already told you those sources are invalid.
Not in church.
You don’t understand how authority works in the Church. That’s your problem, not mine.
Thanks for the cheap shot. But, I never claim to define official church doctrine. It’s already been defined quite clearly. I’m just telling you how it is defined. And my experience is more than 20 years.
You don’t think FARMS would fail to quote official sources, do you? And you call me disingenuous?
Like what? Name a source that says anything a GA says is doctrine. You are continuing to be disingenuous.
No, because a General Authority did not reply. It was an assistant.
So? They’re not questioning doctrine here.
I’ve contradicted what you said, because you’re flat out wrong on this matter. You don’t understand it and you aren’t willing to listen to someone who knows.
Baloney. You are interpreting these things the way you want to.
For it to be official doctrine, it has to be in the standard works, canonized proclamations, or be issued by the First Presidency. But just because something isn’t official doctrine doesn’t make it untrue. It can still be true, and we can know when “we, ourselves, are ‘moved by the Holy Ghost,'” I’ve said that same thing several times in the past few posts.
‘We are not forced to accept teachings with which we disagree’ applies to non-official teachings. Just because someone gets up and gives a talk about a matter doesn’t mean we have to live it. Or if they say something which we don’t believe is true we don’t have to accept it as true.
And if you hear something that disagrees with the standard works, you can reject it. If it is not found in the standard works you can pray about it, and if you are not given a testimony of its truthfulness then you don’t need to accept it.
That’s what those statements mean, and if you understood LDS teachings that’s how you would have read them.
Of course. Think about it. If what they said was not supported by the standard works, or if it contradicted the standard works, then it would need to be rejected out of hand. If what they say is compatible with the standard works then it is a valid point and should be considered carefully and prayerfully.
No, it’s been suggested that key events took place in North America. At least one event had to happen on North America. The rest of it is speculation and the Book of Mormon mentions no modern place names. Inferences can be made, but inferences can be wrong.
Geography is not really critical doctrine. I seriously doubt we’re going to get a revelation on where Lehi had a family picnic cause it just is not important.
On other issues, such as, was Mary a virgin when Jesus was born, you can find it states things quite clearly.
They’re still blogging or on internet forums.
Is dependent on.[/quote]
Then that was a ridiculous statement. These things you keep talking about are not and have never been official doctrine. The Church rests on the Book of Mormon being true and Joseph Smith being a prophet, as well as the existence of God and Jesus Christ as the Messiah like the rest of Christianity.
The exact location of Cumorah in the BoM and other geography points, plus all the other stuff that’s been mentioned are way on the periphery of importance. It’s only important to attempts to discredit or smear the church.
It very clearly is not.
Well, good luck to you, cause thus far you’ve done an abysmal job understanding the facts of the matter. I can honestly tell you that you have it wrong. Your opinion on the matter is absolutely false, and if you try and tell others that X or Y is official Mormon doctrine you will be telling them something that is not true.
No, I’ve been keeping contact with the church quite regularly, just not attending services. I know both Utah Mormon and non-Utah Mormon culture, and I’ve seen the good and bad of both of it.
Let me suggest that before you take a Mormon’s word that they know the doctrine that they’ve read all the standard works at least once.
No, you’ve read a bunch of stuff from a bunch of different people and assumed stuff to be official when it wasn’t to suit your own beliefs about Mormonism.
But hey, you want to believe your own opinion or the opinions of people less well informed than me, go right on ahead. Just don’t think you’ve got the “official picture”. You don’t.
SO what can we deduce from all this?
Let the Mormans call themselves Christians. Does it really matter.
Let the Islamic people call themselves Christians. Are you not supposed to all believe in the one same god anyway?
God is not around as he is in freefall as two colliding galaxies created such a great blackhole that god has been sucked in there and won’t be out for another 3000 billion years or so, until after the next big bang.
[quote]SO what can we deduce from all this?
Let the Mormans call themselves Christians. Does it really matter.[/quote]
In the BIG scheme of things…Doesn’t matter.
True…but in only ONE God…so that makes them a bit more Christian I suppose…but doubt they would like being called Christians.
Most likely scenario…
[quote=“Satellite TV”]SO what can we deduce from all this?
Let the Mormans call themselves Christians. Does it really matter.
Let the Islamic people call themselves Christians. Are you not supposed to all believe in the one same god anyway?[/quote]
If Muslims believed in Christ as the Son of God, or maybe if they believed Christ were Allah, then that’d be right. But since they don’t, they don’t claim to be Christian, and they are not.
We can also deduce that:
[ul][li]Some people who aren’t Mormons think Mormons believe things that they don’t.[/li]
[li]Mormons believe some things that orthodox Christians do not, so Mormons are not orthodox.[/li]
[li]There is a range of beliefs common to LDS, typically consistent with official Church doctrine, but there is also a range of beliefs outside of established doctrine over which there is a difference of opinion.[/li][/ul]
But as you’ve helped demonstrate, LDS members cannot agree among themselves as to what constitutes ‘official Church doctrine’, or even how it is to be determined. You claim that there’s nothing in official Church doctrine which says anything about the geography of the events of the Book of Mormon, and yet when I read the LDS Church site I find this under ‘Basic Beliefs’:
Time after time I find that what you claim are or are not ‘official Church doctrines’, is contradicted by standard LDS sources, including the Church’s own declarations as to what constitutes ‘official Church doctrine’. You even claim that only the standard works contain official Church doctrine, but that’s not true either. You dismiss the GAs, yet the Church appeals to them. You dismiss the prophets, yet the Church appeals to them. You dismiss the Presidency, yet the Church appeals to that as well. This is why I say that you place yourself in the position of determining for the Church, the Presidency, the GAs and even the prophets, what constitutes ‘official Church doctrine’.
These, for example, are explicit declarations of ‘official Church doctrine’:
But as you’ve helped demonstrate, LDS members cannot agree among themselves as to what constitutes ‘official Church doctrine’[/quote]
Individuals members don’t determine what is church doctrine. I’ve quoted sources including the official church news agency making an official release to the public about the standard for LDS official doctrine and a FARMS release article which quotes a number of prophets saying exactly what I just said.
I get my position on what is doctrine from the Church, I didn’t make it up on my own.
You are being disingenuous. My quote was specific to where in the Americas things take place. That the Book of Mormon occurs in North, South, and Central America is a matter of revealed doctrine. If it took place in North America or South America is unknown. And you know perfectly well that’s what was meant.
You must have missed the part where I explained that the Introduction isn’t revealed. It’s not part of the Book of Mormon. It’s like a “Forward”. However, at least it’s official since it is ratified by Committee of General Authorities. Even though it is not scripture, it’s at least authorized to speak for the Church.
But does that mention anything about where in modern geography Hill Cumorah is? Which part of the Americas it is in? No.
Thus, speculation as to where the city of Bountiful was, or Hill Cumorah, or any particular event in the Book of Mormon is not a matter of doctrine.
Yes. America. Doesn’t say North or South, or any specific point.
Yes. The American continent. Of course, there are two American continents.
Bull. Nothing I’ve said is contradicted by standard (meaning ‘official’) Church sources.
Standard works + modern revelation that is received through the established process. That means the First Presidency making a joint statement or the full Quorum of the 12 doing the same by unanimous voice. Technically, if all the Quorums of the Seventy got together and had a completely unanimous declaration it would be of equal effect as that of the First Presidency. Nothing outside of that is considered binding or official.
See Doctrine and Covenants Section 107.
That establishes what is considered official doctrine from outside the standard works.
Bull. I don’t dismiss them. I just understand their role in the Church. They are looked to help people understand the doctrine. They don’t actually make doctrine.
Bull. I don’t dismiss them. I just understand their role in the Church. They are the ones through which revelation comes, but unless that revelation is given through the established procedure, it is not doctrine.
Bull. The First Presidency is the official leadership of the Church. What the First Presidency says together official. I’ve said that already.
Bull. I’ve taken my method of determining what is doctrine from the prophets. I’ve linked to where that is what is officially stated.
You, on the other hand, have no grounds for your declaration of what is official LDS doctrine or not.
[quote]These, for example, are explicit declarations of ‘official Church doctrine’:
(Journal of Wilford Woodruff 4:97)
(Mormonism and the Negro, p.28)
(Mormonism and the Negro, p.47)
(Mormonism and the Negro, p.16)
(JFS Letter to Joseph H. Henderson, April 10, 1963)
(LOOK magazine, Oct. 22, 1963, p.79)
(Seattle magazine, Dec. 1967, p.60 emphases added)
(Mormon Doctrine, pp. 526-527)[/quote]
None of these sources are valid. Not a single one.
What you see are General Authorities discussing Church doctrine. However, these letters do not determine Church doctrine. They do not enjoy any status of being official.
I know you aren’t going to take my word on it, but ask someone who is in authority and I guarantee they’ll give you the same answer. Not one of these sources can be used for doctrine.
The above quotes are basically commentaries about Mormon doctrine applied to a discussion of blacks.
The following are (or were, since revelation changed something) official doctrine:
Cain had the mark of black skin.
Prior to the revelation, blacks could not hold the priesthood in the Mormon church.
There was a war in heaven in the pre-existence, and there were valiants spirits who defended the plan of God.
Comments on those doctrines were applied to the discussion by church leaders. But the comments are not official doctrine.
However, let me make this clear, some of this is still a common Mormon belief, even though it is not official doctrine. If you want to lambast the Mormons on the ground that they believe this, go right ahead, because many do. As I said out the outset of this discussion, you can still criticize Mormons for what they actually do believe.
The idea that blacks are mentally or morally inferior is no longer a belief of Mormons (and was never doctrine), but that was a belief of some early leaders. The idea that blacks were denied the priesthood because they were less valiant spirits is not official doctrine, but it is still a widely held belief based on doctrine of the pre-mortal existence.
[quote]
Bull. I don’t dismiss them. I just understand their role in the Church. They are the ones through which revelation comes, but unless that revelation is given through the established procedure, it is not doctrine. [/quote]
BUT …you dismiss history. In so doing…dismiss the Bible and its teachings.
The Fact of the matter: The Temple of Mormonism is built on a fatally flawed foundation. All the “revelations” and Quorums to the nth degree will never change that.