"The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures"

[_Chap]

by the way, the guy that started the China claims sounds like some anti-mormon simply mocking Mormonism.

Have you looked at the website I linked to? See here:

http://ldsanarchy.wordpress.com/contributors/

He may not be your kind of LDS, but it is very unlikely that he does not consider himself as a loyal church member:

Contributors are invitation-only.

LDS Anarchist

The originator of this blog. Is an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Has a very strong testimony of, and belief in, the gospel of Jesus Christ. Is also a staunch anarchist.

Complete List of Articles Authored by LDS Anarchist

Anthony E. Larson

Picture of Anthony E. Larson

Writing is what Anthony does for a living as well as for fun. A freelance journalist for the last 10 years, published in several newspapers, magazines and websites, he has also been a successful video producer and writer, as well as an award-winning composer during his rich and varied career.

It was Anthony’s lifelong interest in prophecy that first led him to become a writer. When he came across a novel view of ancient history that seemed to marvelously illuminate the metaphorical language of the scriptures, he felt compelled to explain it to his fellow Saints; he felt compelled to demonstrate the incredibly broad application it had to the restored gospel and the teachings of the prophets. So, he started writing about it … and hasn’t stopped.

In the last two decades, Anthony has retreated from big city life, choosing the wide-open spaces and big sky of Northeastern California, where he lives with his wife, Carla, on a 40-acre ranch in a home he built with considerable help from his eight children before they all moved away and started their own families.

Partially retired, Anthony continues to write for three local newspapers on a weekly basis. He still composes and arranges orchestral and choral music on his computer-based digital system at home and dabbles in video projects.

Lastly, he continues to explore in print and video the implications of his research into ancient planetary history and its bearing upon the restored gospel. He claims that the more he discovers about those ancient celestial events and conditions, the better he understands the origins of temple and scriptural imagery.

Like Joseph Smith, Anthony says that Revelation is “the plainest book God ever caused to be written.” That applies to the Book of Abraham and the enigmatic Egyptian facsimiles as well, he says. But perhaps most important of all, according to Anthony, is the meaningful significance he finds in temple symbolism and ritual, which he says is “chock full of information, like reading a book.”

(Anthony has a blog, Things as They Are, Were and Are to Come, and a website, Mormon Prophecy, with more of his articles.)

There are some pretty strange Episcopalians too, y'know. Maybe this guy and the guy who posted on this thread are just a bit out of left field. So? Brigham Young said some strange stuff as well.

[_bcspace]

So, Kimball's statements and the "Sorenson heresy" are both official doctrine?

FIFY

Yes they are. However since one is of later date than the other, that one superceeds the previous one if there is a conflict. This is in keeping with the fact of modern revelation/inspiration being part of the LDS Church's systematic theology.

[_Buffalo]

So, Kimball's statements and the "Sorenson heresy" are both official doctrine?

FIFY

Yes they are. However since one is of later date than the other, that one superceeds the previous one if there is a conflict. This is in keeping with the fact of modern revelation/inspiration being part of the LDS Church's systematic theology.

So, when something published in an official publication specifically states it's not doctrine, you don't believe it?

[_BartBurk]

So, Kimball's statements and the "Sorenson heresy" are both official doctrine?

FIFY

Yes they are. However since one is of later date than the other, that one superceeds the previous one if there is a conflict. This is in keeping with the fact of modern revelation/inspiration being part of the LDS Church's systematic theology.

How can an article in which the author asserts that his article is not official doctrine be considered official doctrine?

[_bcspace]

How can an article in which the author asserts that his article is not official doctrine be considered official doctrine?

As I explained before, the context is not that Sorenson's theory itself is the doctrine (because of the qualification), it's that one can accept Sorenson's theory and not come into conflict with existing doctrine because the Church published it. What this means of course is that the Church has no doctrine as to the various Book of Mormon geographical theories.

So if you want to accept the obscure Malaysian Book of Mormon geographical theory, feel free. Just don't teach it for doctrine.

[_Buffalo]

How can an article in which the author asserts that his article is not official doctrine be considered official doctrine?

As I explained before, the context is not that Sorenson's theory itself is the doctrine (because of the qualification), it's that one can accept Sorenson's theory and not come into conflict with existing doctrine because the Church published it. What this means of course is that the Church has no doctrine as to the various Book of Mormon geographical theories.

So if you want to accept the obscure Malaysian Book of Mormon geographical theory, feel free. Just don't teach it for doctrine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbK0C9AYMd8

[_BartBurk]

How can an article in which the author asserts that his article is not official doctrine be considered official doctrine?

As I explained before, the context is not that Sorenson's theory itself is the doctrine (because of the qualification), it's that one can accept Sorenson's theory and not come into conflict with existing doctrine because the Church published it. What this means of course is that the Church has no doctrine as to the various Book of Mormon geographical theories.

So if you want to accept the obscure Malaysian Book of Mormon geographical theory, feel free. Just don't teach it for doctrine.

You have confused me a little on this thread, but that's the plan isn't it?

[_bcspace]

You have confused me a little on this thread, but that's the plan isn't it?

Not the plan. But I understand where the confusion comes from. It is a simple fact that the Sorenson article is doctrine. However, I sometimes forget that there was a disclaimer on it that allows us to take it in context. I have never believed or taught that a Mesoamerican LGT is the doctrine, but I have taught, as the Church is doing by publishing the Sorenson article, that there are many geographical theories out there that one can accept without running afoul of the Church.

[_Buffalo]

You have confused me a little on this thread, but that's the plan isn't it?

Not the plan. But I understand where the confusion comes from. It is a simple fact that the Sorenson article is doctrine. However, I sometimes forget that there was a disclaimer on it that allows us to take it in context. I have never believed or taught that a Mesoamerican LGT is the doctrine, but I have taught, as the Church is doing by publishing the Sorenson article, that there are many geographical theories out there that one can accept without running afoul of the Church.

That doesn't make the LGT doctrine. In fact, it specifically says it's not doctrine.

You can believe a host of undoctrinal ideas without running afoul of the church. As long as you keep your mouth shut and pray, pay and obey, your options are open.

[_Brackite]

...

The Lehi family was not alone when they arrived in the Americas. The Book of Mormon is full of clues to show you this, something I won't go into it now for it would take a book.

...

If Lehi and his family were not alone when they arrived in the Americas, then why does the Book of Mormon Prophet Jacob describes his people as being "a lonesome and a solemn people" towards the end of his life???

Here is that Scriptural Passage again:

Jacob 7:

[26] And it came to pass that I, Jacob, began to be old; and the record of this people being kept on the other plates of Nephi, wherefore, I conclude this record, declaring that I have written according to the best of my knowledge, by saying that the time passed away with us, and also our lives passed away like as it were unto us a dream, we being a lonesome and a solemn people, wanderers, cast out from Jerusalem, born in tribulation, in a wilderness, and hated of our brethren, which caused wars and contentions; wherefore, we did mourn out our days.

(Italic Emphasized Mine.)