Dan, please explain something to me

[_Mercury]

Could you state briefly what the current status is of the LGT? Is this being taught in institute classes? Is it being used as an explanation anywhere officially by the LDS church?

What is your opinion of the LGT and is there a better alternative forwarded in LDS Apologetics?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Could you state briefly what the current status is of the LGT?

Neither it nor the hemispheric model is officially taught by the Church, though it has been presented in the Ensign. I know of some General Authorities who find it convincing; I don't personally know of any living General Authorities who reject it, though there may perhaps be some.

I don't have any statistical data, of course, but I suspect that it's believed by an ever growing number of members generally. It's rejected by some, as well, but the geography of the Book of Mormon isn't an issue that the vast majority of Church members give any serious thought to.

Is this being taught in institute classes?

I really couldn't say. When I've taught Institute (which is only a couple of times) and when I've taught Book of Mormon at BYU (again, only a couple of times) and when I've taught Gospel Doctrine class (which I've done many times), I mention it favorably. But I always say that people can be saved without agreeing with me on the geography of the Book of Mormon, which I regard as a peripheral issue in most senses.

Is it being used as an explanation anywhere officially by the LDS church?

No. The Church's only official position on Book of Mormon geography has always been that it doesn't have one.

What is your opinion of the LGT and is there a better alternative forwarded in LDS Apologetics?

There is actually no single "limited geographical model." There are many, sharing only in the common feature that they read the distances deducible from the Book of Mormon as indicating a relatively small area. Some LGT models place the Book of Mormon in the Great Lakes area. I think these are fatally flawed and, so far, not worth taking seriously. Much more serious are a few competing models focused on Mesoamerica. The prime difference between most of them is whether they take the Usumacinta River as the Book of Mormon's River Sidon, or, instead, the parallel Grijalva River. This choice determines the rest of the model. John Sorenson's model is based on the Grijalva correlation, and seems to me the best thought out.

[_Mercury]

Thanks Dan. That was informative. All of this being said, how many specific LGT-related theories have been published? Is there a specific geographical location that stands out the most? I assume that the correlations were weighed and a leader has been chosen, especialy in such a closed form of editorial among Mormon apologist documents.

Being that a form of the LGT has been published in the Ensign, this makes it Canon. I was raised to believe that the Ensign are scripture.

[_Blixa]

It was informative. Thanks for the useful post!

[_Daniel Peterson]

All of this being said, how many specific LGT-related theories have been published?

I couldn't tell you, off the top of my head. The best reference on that question is John L. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book (Provo: FARMS, 1990), in which Professor Sorenson attempts to list and summarize all of the models of Book of Mormon geography of which he was aware to that point. Not all of them are LGT models, and many of them are virtually reiterations of each other with only the smallest variations between them.

Is there a specific geographical location that stands out the most?

As I say, I prefer Sorenson's. But I'm not absolutely wedded to it.

I assume that the correlations were weighed and a leader has been chosen, especialy in such a closed form of editorial among Mormon apologist documents.

No. There's no committee that sifts through and approves or disapproves such models. They prosper to the extent that they manage to persuade people, and they fail to the extent that they don't.

Sorenson's book, referenced above -- it's actually a pretty low-tech thing, more a lengthy bound research report than a real book -- contains a discussion of principles that might be used to evaluate and discriminate between rival models. Another extremely useful discussion is John Clark's initial foray into Book of Mormon geographical issues, "A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies," published in the very first issue of what was then called the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon (but is now called the FARMS Review):

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=7

Being that a form of the LGT has been published in the Ensign, this makes it Canon. I was raised to believe that the Ensign are scripture.

I don't agree. I've written for the Ensign several times, but I don't believe that I've ever authored scripture.

Still, the fact that John Sorenson's two-part article was published in the Ensign while clearly presuming a limited Mesoamerican model of Book of Mormon geography indicates, at a minimum, that the Brethren are not hostile in principle to limited-geographical theorizing.

[_Nightingale]

Merc:
"Being that a form of the LGT has been published in the Ensign, this makes it Canon. I was raised to believe that the Ensign are scripture."

DCP:
"I don't agree. I've written for the Ensign several times, but I don't believe that I've ever authored scripture."

As a convert trying to get a grip on what was what, I asked this specific question in Gospel Essentials class and the stake missionary clearly stated that what the Q12 writes in the Ensign is scripture; as in, perhaps, their talks from Conference and the prophet's main article in the magazine. All members in the class seemed to agree with this information.

Of course, that is just one stake missionary in one class, my understanding of what was said and my memory of it a few years later.

But it makes sense that the entirety of every issue of the magazine is not scripture and I'm sure you could find a lot of members who don't regard any of the articles as actual scripture.

I have always thought it would be very useful for the Q12 to make some things a little more clear to the membership at large. I do like to get the basic facts straight.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Just ran across this a minute ago, and thought it might be helpful:

http://inmedias.blogspot.com/2007/07/ex ... -ross.html

[_The Nehor]

Thanks Dan. That was informative. All of this being said, how many specific LGT-related theories have been published? Is there a specific geographical location that stands out the most? I assume that the correlations were weighed and a leader has been chosen, especialy in such a closed form of editorial among Mormon apologist documents.

Being that a form of the LGT has been published in the Ensign, this makes it Canon. I was raised to believe that the Ensign are scripture.

The definition of canon as I understand it includes the standard works and everything published in the official conference reports of the Church. So an article on the Book of Mormon would not qualify.

However even if it is canon we don't have a doctrine of canonical infallibility.

[_harmony]

Thanks Dan. That was informative. All of this being said, how many specific LGT-related theories have been published? Is there a specific geographical location that stands out the most? I assume that the correlations were weighed and a leader has been chosen, especialy in such a closed form of editorial among Mormon apologist documents.

Being that a form of the LGT has been published in the Ensign, this makes it Canon. I was raised to believe that the Ensign are scripture.

The definition of canon as I understand it includes the standard works and everything published in the official conference reports of the Church. So an article on the Book of Mormon would not qualify.

However even if it is canon we don't have a doctrine of canonical infallibility.

The canon is the standard works. Until something is voted on and accepted as part of the canon, it is not scripture. It can be as binding as scripture, but if it is not in the canon, it is not scripture.

That's why the revelation that rescinded the priesthood ban was canonized: to give it more weight than the policy, which was all the ban was in the first place.