DCP Comments on the Nature of Doctrine

[_guy sajer]

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.

I guess that Joseph Smith is likewise confused on this point. Too bad Charity and other Mopologists weren't around back then to correct his obvious misunderstanding of Mormon doctrine.

[_Doctor Steuss]

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.

[...]

I guess it depends on where you grow up and who you're surrounded by. One of the very first times I went to Gospel Doctrine class a woman in the ward told of how her and some friends were discussing a particular scriptural passage in the temple, and she then went on to tell what they had determined regarding that passage.

After she was done, my dad raised his hand and said something along the lines of: “My father used to always say that there is more false doctrine taught at funerals than at any other place. I guess we can now add backrooms of the temple as a close runner-up.”

Also, my grandfather (my mother’s father) supposedly used to give a particular GD teacher a run for her money whenever he would visit. It supposedly (I was too young to be in the class, but this is according to my parents) got to the point where the teacher would avoid calling on him because she didn’t like constantly being corrected on what was “doctrine” and what was opinion.

Then again, even though I had this particular upbringing, I still often have trouble figuring out what is and is not “doctrine,” and have steadily come to the conclusion that of what is taught in church, maybe 5% of it can definitively be labeled as “doctrine” (I apologize for the run-on sentence).

[_Some Schmo]

Again, I am moved by this thread to make the simple observation, apologists are either complete idiots, or intellectually dishonest (or, most likely, both).

How anyone has even a modicum of respect for DCP (or any other apologist) is beyond reason. The only thing they're good for is laughing stock.

[_guy sajer]

Again, I am moved by this thread to make the simple observation, apologists are either complete idiots, or intellectually dishonest (or, most likely, both).

How anyone has even a modicum of respect for DCP (or any other apologist) is beyond reason. The only thing they're good for is laughing stock.

I vote for intellectually dishonest, although they are, by and large, not aware of their dishonesty. This is a product of their lack of critical self-reflection skills.

[_Mister Scratch]

Well, in any case, I for one am in favor of the Hill Cumorah location being in NY. I would be far more impressed with the apologists if they would figure out a way to spin the facts so that Cumorah can remain in NY, just as Joseph Smith and the rest of the Brethren always taught.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

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?

Church leaders have always taught that there was a final battle, as the Book of Mormon describes. They (the church leaders) 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.

So you're a TBM and you are presented with two theories on the Hill cumorah location. One has been taught by LDS prophets from Joseph Smith to Hinckely, and it is backed up in the photo section of the official church website. The other theory is taught by a guy named Daniel Peterson, and another guy named John Sorensen. As a believing Latter-Day saint who has a testimony that the Apostles and Prophets are inspired of God and are the only people with the keys to interpret doctrine for the church, who are you going to believe?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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.

Agreed.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Again, I am moved by this thread to make the simple observation, apologists are either complete idiots, or intellectually dishonest (or, most likely, both).

How anyone has even a modicum of respect for DCP (or any other apologist) is beyond reason. The only thing they're good for is laughing stock.

Those who claim the above regarding apologists are either complete idiots, or intellectually dishonest (or, most likely, both). Does that sound fair?

[_Gazelam]

I guess it depends on where you grow up and who you're surrounded by. One of the very first times I went to Gospel Doctrine class a woman in the ward told of how her and some friends were discussing a particular scriptural passage in the temple, and she then went on to tell what they had determined regarding that passage.

After she was done, my dad raised his hand and said something along the lines of: “My father used to always say that there is more false doctrine taught at funerals than at any other place. I guess we can now add backrooms of the temple as a close runner-up.”

[_Some Schmo]

Again, I am moved by this thread to make the simple observation, apologists are either complete idiots, or intellectually dishonest (or, most likely, both).

How anyone has even a modicum of respect for DCP (or any other apologist) is beyond reason. The only thing they're good for is laughing stock.

Those who claim the above regarding apologists are either complete idiots, or intellectually dishonest (or, most likely, both). Does that sound fair?

Why would you say that? I actually have evidence backing up my claim.