DCP Comments on the Nature of Doctrine

[_Mister Scratch]

I have to thank one of my anonymous "informants" for drawing my attention to a fascinating thread over on the aptly named MADboard. The thread involves the perennially interesting and fraught subject of the Hill Cumorah's location, and whether or not the Church officially supports a New York or a MesoAmerican location. Perhaps this is as close to a legit doctrinal pronouncement as we will ever get:

It's clear to me that the church has taught - and still teaches - that the battles took place in New York.

That's not clear to me. And I think I would have noticed it.

Further:

If it were an official "Church teaching" that the New York Cumorah is the site of the final battles, I doubt very much that Deseret Book, the Church-owned publisher and bookstore chain, would have published and distributed John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, which argues for a Mesoamerican site for those battles. And it's extraordinary unlikely that the Church's official magazine, the Ensign, would have published two substantial articles in which Professor Sorenson laid out his geographical model. And it's virtually inconceivable that FARMS, now the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, which has for years been an official part of Church-owned Brigham Young University, would be permitted, as it clearly has been, to publish articles and books and to distribute films advocating a Mesoamerican site for those final battles.

Does anybody seriously imagine that Deseret Book would publish and sell volumes arguing against the deity of Christ or advocating gay marriage or questioning the necessity of temple ordinances? Does anybody actually think that the Ensign would carry an article denying the restoration of the priesthood? Is there anyone out there who can conceive of an official unit of Brigham Young University being permitted to argue consistently for the ordination of women or the fraudulence of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling or the impotence of the Atonement?

There are some very serious consequences to what DCP is saying here. For one thing, he is saying that the "legitimacy" lent by Deseret Book is tantamount to "doctrine." He is outlining a basic ideology, and, at base, seems to be admitting that Deseret Book is, in effect, a kind of "propaganda machine" for the LDS Church---i.e., that Deseret will only ever publish stuff which is adamantly pro-Church and pro-Mopologetics. I am quite stunned that he admits that these publications are so one-sided and contrary to change that argument in favor of "ordination of women" would be "inconceivable".

Anyhow, someone immediately spots a problem in DCP's argument:

Well there you go.. its official.. The Church espouses the Mesoamerica location.

by the way, I seem to recall Will Bagley’s Blood of Prophet is on the shelves at Deseret Book stores.. is that true? .. If so, then by DCP’s logic that must also have been embraced by the Brethren..

And here is "Russ":

Dan, LDS-owned Deseret still offers for sale the Journal of Discources and the Book of Commandments, do they not?

So if you're going to tell me that something being sold by Deseret is good enough to be considered doctrine, well....

And here is a very detailed and impressive rebuttal from Gervin:

The official web site of the LDS Church (www.LDS.org) has a page called PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHURCH HISTORY SITES. The introduction states (my emphasis):

These photographs of important Church history sites portray the lands where early Latter-day Saints walked, where modern prophets have lived and taught, and where many scriptural events took place. To help you better use the photographs in your study, each photograph is accompanied by a short description. The first paragraph following the title of the description explains the setting of the photograph, including important things to look at and often which direction the photographer was facing. Significant scriptural events from that area are then listed, along with scripture references so that you can know where to read more about those events.

There is a link to a picture of the Hill Cumorah in New York. There are scripture references under the photo. One scripture reference is to Mormon 6:6 - "And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni."

The official church website shows a picture of the hill Cumorah in New York. Beneath the picture is a reference to a scripture that "all our people" gathered in the land of Cumorah, where the plates are hidden. The very next verse (7) begins the description of the battle. Where would you place the location of the battle based on this reading? Is the LDS web site wrong?

If you think that DCP would soon be swooping in to engage in damage control after putting his foot in his mouth, you'd be right:

Dan, LDS-owned Deseret still offers for sale the Journal of Discources and the Book of Commandments, do they not?

So if you're going to tell me that something being sold by Deseret is good enough to be considered doctrine, well....

I didn't say that a Mesoamerican Cumorah is doctrine.

I say that there is no official Church doctrine on the topic. [Mr. S's note: So, what? There is only "unofficial" doctrine on this subject? And if this is so, how do Sorenson's publications carry any weight?]

I say that clear and overt contradictions of settled Church doctrine are not typically published and distributed by Deseret Book, repeatedly advocated by units of Brigham Young University, and featured in the Ensign.

I say that if a New York Cumorah were settled and official Church doctrine, clear and overt contradictions of that doctrine would not have been published and distributed by Deseret Book, repeatedly advocated by units of Brigham Young University, and featured in the Ensign.

Well there you go.. its official.. The Church espouses the Mesoamerica location.

I didn't say that a Mesoamerican Cumorah is doctrine.

I say that there is no official Church doctrine on the topic.

by the way, I seem to recall Will Bagley’s Blood of Prophet is on the shelves at Deseret Book stores.. is that true?

Yes, it has been. Perhaps by mistake. Perhaps not.

Deseret Book carries a number of books, including many by non-LDS authors and from non-LDS publishers. Non-LDS books by non-LDS authors published by non-LDS publishers are not official statements of Church doctrine.

I didn't specify materials "published and distributed by Deseret Book" merely because I like phrases beginning with the same letter as my last name.

And I didn't throw the fact in that the notion of a Mesoamerican Cumorah and a Mesoamerican geographical model has been "repeatedly advocated by units of Brigham Young University, and featured in the Ensign" just because I wanted three clauses instead of one.

These statements have actual meaning. They're not just assemblies of sounds.

Did Deseret Book publish Will Bagley's volume? Has he advocated his views in the Ensign? Does any college, department, or institute at BYU regularly publish in support of his opinions?

Okay. Let's back up here a moment. It seems that DCP is saying that having publications from Deseret Book, having stuff in the Ensign, and having material taught in classes at BYU elevates it to the status of "unofficial doctrine." Is that correct? Or am I missing something here? Surely the Good Professor is not telling us that Sorenson and the like are publishing findings on matters for which there is no doctrine.... Right?

(by the way: I think it's important to note that, in addition to Gervin's very astute post, that the only real, extant, Brethren-sanctioned statement we have on this is the mythic Michael Watson letter stating that, in fact, the Hill Cumorah is located in NY. DCP and Bill Hamblin claim to have had a "second letter," but oddly---and conveniently---Bill Hamblin "lost it." D'oh!)

Here is the final exchange:

While you can parse all day what "Church doctrine" means or is, do you deny that Church leaders from the time of Joseph Smith to President Hinkley have taught in the past that "the "Hill Cumorah in NY - is the site of the last great Book of Mormon battle?

Church leaders have always taught that there was a final battle, as the Book of Mormon describes. They have overwhelmingly assumed that that final battle occurred in New York. There has never been an official doctrine on the topic.

Mormon scholars are free to argue against the notion that the final battle occurred in New York -- in Deseret Book publications, at BYU, in publications from BYU, and in the Ensign -- precisely because there is no official doctrine to that effect.

You can dismiss this as mere "parsing" all you want. But the fact remains that denials of the Atonement, the deity of Christ, the historicity of the New Testament, and the claims of Joseph Smith would, to put it mildly, not be so well received. Those are official doctrines. Nothing about the details of Book of Mormon geography comes close. And, anyway, there's nothing wrong with "parsing." Terminological rigor is a good thing, not a bad thing. If your argument relies for its success upon terminological sloppiness, that doesn't speak well of your argument.

So, there you have it: some doctrine is debatable, while some is "official." Contradicting certain things, which may or may not have any actual scriptural basis, can get you ex'ed, while, on the other hand, contradicting teachings which have been a part of the Church for hundreds of years is no big deal, and can even help you climb the social and academic LDS hierarchy. (A sidenote: I think it is well worth noting that DCP thinks that all the "claims of Joseph Smith" constitute "official" doctrine. Does this include things such as Kinderhook? or Zelph? Or granting women the use of the priesthood? Hmmm....)

[_cinepro]

It is my impression that DCP is just arguing that the "Church" is undecided on the issue, and they are open to different theories. Neither the NY or Mesoamerica theories are exclusively taught, and either can be argued for without falling out of favor with the "Church". Thus, we can find statements supporting both theories published in Church materials, and while they are contradictory, neither doctrinally negate the other.

This is in contrast to uniformly and officially held positions on God, Jesus, Priesthood, the First Vision, the Book of Mormon as ancient and doctrinal, etc. I'm not sure if I can read too much more into it.

[_Mister Scratch]

It is my impression that DCP is just arguing that the "Church" is undecided on the issue, and they are open to different theories. Neither the NY or Mesoamerica theories are exclusively taught, and either can be argued for without falling out of favor with the "Church". Thus, we can find statements supporting both theories published in Church materials, and while they are contradictory, neither doctrinally negate the other.

This is in contrast to uniformly and officially held positions on God, Jesus, Priesthood, the First Vision, the Book of Mormon as ancient and doctrinal, etc. I'm not sure if I can read too much more into it.

I see what you're saying, Cinepro, but then again: something such as the "real" location of the Hill Cumorah pertains quite directly to these supposedly "uniformly and officially held positions"---namely, "The Book of Mormon as ancient." If TBMs and Apologists cannot come to any agreement on the location of Cumorah (among other things) then what is the evidentiary basis for the historicity, or "ancientness", of the Book of Mormon?

[_cinepro]

I see what you're saying, Cinepro, but then again: something such as the "real" location of the Hill Cumorah pertains quite directly to these supposedly "uniformly and officially held positions"---namely, "The Book of Mormon as ancient." If TBMs and Apologists cannot come to any agreement on the location of Cumorah (among other things) then what is the evidentiary basis for the historicity, or "ancientness", of the Book of Mormon?

Certainly, if Joseph Smith and other Church leaders can be so totally wrong about something as simple as the name and significance of a small hill in upper-state New York, it raises questions about what else they might have be wrong about. But the original comment seemed to address the issue of whether or not they could be wrong in the first place, and whether or not faithful LDS can believe they were mistaken.

I'm sure critics would disagree with DCP and other believers over the importance of these errors of geography.

Personally, I find Joseph Smith's comments in the Wentworth letter to be far more damaging to the LGT of the Book of Mormon, and if believers can ignore it to the extent that they must, it should be easy for them to overcome the Cumorah issue.

(For reference, here is the paragraph of the Wentworth letter that I find so contradictory to the LGT)

In this important and interesting book [The Book of Mormon] the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites, and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.

(emphasis added)

[_BishopRic]

I see what you're saying, Cinepro, but then again: something such as the "real" location of the Hill Cumorah pertains quite directly to these supposedly "uniformly and officially held positions"---namely, "The Book of Mormon as ancient." If TBMs and Apologists cannot come to any agreement on the location of Cumorah (among other things) then what is the evidentiary basis for the historicity, or "ancientness", of the Book of Mormon?

Certainly, if Joseph Smith and other Church leaders can be so totally wrong about something as simple as the name and significance of a small hill in upper-state New York, it raises questions about what else they might have be wrong about. But the original comment seemed to address the issue of whether or not they could be wrong in the first place, and whether or not faithful LDS can believe they were mistaken.

I'm sure critics would disagree with DCP and other believers over the importance of these errors of geography.

Personally, I find Joseph Smith's comments in the Wentworth letter to be far more damaging to the LGT of the Book of Mormon, and if believers can ignore it to the extent that they must, it should be easy for them to overcome the Cumorah issue.

(For reference, here is the paragraph of the Wentworth letter that I find so contradictory to the LGT)

In this important and interesting book [The Book of Mormon] the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites, and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.

(emphasis added)

Wow! That's hard to argue against. I suppose the mopologists' responses to this letter would be that Joseph wasn't given total knowledge of this land's ancient history, so this is his just him doing his best to put the pieces together. But come on! Joseph was the foreordained, chosen prophet to restore the one and only true gospel...the one we all need to learn and accept to gain eternal life. You'd think that an all-knowing, loving God would have helped him a bit more to get the history right if he were to be such an important spokesperson for him, wouldn'tcha think???

[_Gadianton]

A fascinating thread for many reasons. But I wonder what the doctrinal claims surrounding Joseph Smith are? And I wonder how the Maxwell Institutes' latest work which doesn't "deny" the negative aspects of Joseph's history clearly maintains the elusive "doctrinal claims" that say, Dan Vogel's doesn't.

[_The Nehor]

It is my impression that DCP is just arguing that the "Church" is undecided on the issue, and they are open to different theories. Neither the NY or Mesoamerica theories are exclusively taught, and either can be argued for without falling out of favor with the "Church". Thus, we can find statements supporting both theories published in Church materials, and while they are contradictory, neither doctrinally negate the other.

This is in contrast to uniformly and officially held positions on God, Jesus, Priesthood, the First Vision, the Book of Mormon as ancient and doctrinal, etc. I'm not sure if I can read too much more into it.

I see what you're saying, Cinepro, but then again: something such as the "real" location of the Hill Cumorah pertains quite directly to these supposedly "uniformly and officially held positions"---namely, "The Book of Mormon as ancient." If TBMs and Apologists cannot come to any agreement on the location of Cumorah (among other things) then what is the evidentiary basis for the historicity, or "ancientness", of the Book of Mormon?

The book iitself is all we really have to test.

[_krose]

When did Joseph Smith Jr. speak as a prophet and when did he speak as a man? There seems to be no consistency on that head. Certain of his pronouncements are taken as doctrine, while others are dismissed as opinion and speculation, seemingly based on whether an apologist agrees with it.

Take, for example, the Word of Wisdom. The dietary rules currently followed in the church do not match the words in the revelation itself. It talks of "hot drinks," which to my way of reading is clearly a temperature issue, so it should include hot cocoa, but not iced tea. But adherents point to Smith's later clarification that what 'the Lord' meant was coffee and tea. What makes his non-revelation words on this subject more reliable than everything he said to support Nephites inhabiting the US?

[_silentkid]

When did Joseph Smith Jr. speak as a prophet and when did he speak as a man?

The answer to this, for Mormon apologists, is pretty easy. If Joseph's statements support their current position, he was speaking as a prophet. If Joseph's statements contradict their current position, he was speaking as a man. Convenient. A similar stance can be taken when trying to distinguish between doctrines and practices. If some teaching in the church has changed (i.e. priesthood to all worthy males), it wasn't a change in doctrine, but a change in practice. How do we know this? Doctrines don't change, by definition. Kind of tautological. Oh, the wonderful world of apologetics.

[_beastie]

I don't recall hearing such parsing about "what is doctrine" when I was LDS. The fixation on "doctrine versus teaching" only has one purpose - providing an escape clause for past idiotic prophetic teachings.

It's just one more aspect of internet Mormonism that makes the entire need for a "restoration" suspect. Remarkably few things are "doctrine", and it doesn't matter if prophets TEACH a whole bunch of false junk in the meantime.

So why in the heck did God ever remove his "authority" from the early church to begin with? What, back then he CARED about a whole bunch of false junk being taught in his church, but doesn't care today?