Peterson Misleading Again

[_Daniel Peterson]

church leaders have commonly believed and taught that Cumorah is in NY.

Nobody denies this.

But to try and pretend that the church hasn't historically taught that Cumorah is in NY because is silly

We certainly disagree on what is and what isn't "silly," but we don't disagree at all that the overwhelming consensus in the Church for many decades has been that the hill in New York is the Cumorah of the Nephites.

Still, if you want to cite a few more passages from General Authorities to demonstrate that undisputed claim beyond dispute, you're welcome to do it.

and that is what the insistence on "official doctrine" misleadingly insinuates.

It's what you choose to infer. It's nothing I've ever said. It's nothing that Professor Sorenson has ever said. It's nothing that Professor Clark has ever said. It's nothing that Brant Gardner nor any other prominent proponent of a limited Mesoamerican view has ever said.

Even the main proponents of "two cumorahs" admit that they were taught the NY cumorah idea throughout their lives, and they had to rethink the proposition as they studied more.

Yup.

[_beastie]

There is absolutely not the slightest question about that.

Proponents of limited Mesoamerican models are definitely going against a consensus that has been dominant for many, many years.

But there has never been an official Church endorsement of the consensus. People have been entirely free to dissent publicly from it -- in classes at the Church's university, in Deseret Book publications (e.g., Sorenson's Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon), in the pages of the Ensign (e.g., Sorenson's two-part essay expressing a limited Mesoamerican model roughly two decades ago), etc.

No comparable freedom to dissent exists in areas where the Church truly does have an official position. Advocacy of premarital sex won't last long in a BYU classroom. Deseret Book doesn't publish volumes denying the existence of God. The Ensign never runs articles questioning the atonement of Christ. The Maxwell Institute would not prosper long if it decided to deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon, whereas it seems to do alright even though people prominently associated with it (including me) publicly favor a Mesoamerican geography that includes a Mesoamerican Cumorah. And so forth.

In other words, church leaders, who we can assume were sincere, and prayed for guidance before delivering talks, lessons, etc, to the body of the church while functioning in their respective callings, taught the body of the church incorrect ideas.

But hey, as long as it's not "doctrine", no harm, no foul.

I do not recall these conversations about whether or not the church "officially" taught the Cumorah/NY discussions ever revolving around whether or not people were at risk for discipline for teaching the two cumorah theory. The discussions were clearly about what the church leaders taught and believed and hence, conveyed to members.

This "it's not official doctrine" has always felt like a diversionary tactic to me, a sleight of hand of sorts, one which critics, unfortunately, accommodate by following that discussion as if it really matters in terms of the real topic.

[_Daniel Peterson]

In other words, church leaders, who we can assume were sincere, and prayed for guidance before delivering talks, lessons, etc, to the body of the church while functioning in their respective callings, taught the body of the church incorrect ideas.

I've rarely if ever seen a case where the main thrust of a Church leader's remarks concerned the coordinates of the Nephite Cumorah. The emphasis was always on some other (quite sound) principle.

Since I don't believe in the inerrancy of canonized scripture, I'm not likely to assert the inerrancy of General Authority talks.

I do not recall these conversations about whether or not the church "officially" taught the Cumorah/NY discussions ever revolving around whether or not people were at risk for discipline for teaching the two cumorah theory.

I'm happy, in that case, to help you get out of your intellectual rut.

Considering the question in such a way is a plainly useful tool for distinguishing what the Church genuinely considers central and non-negotiable from subjects on which members are largely or entirely free to come to their own independent conclusions.

This "it's not official doctrine" has always felt like a diversionary tactic to me, a sleight of hand of sorts, one which critics, unfortunately, accommodate by following that discussion as if it really matters in terms of the real topic.

Failure to distinguish widely-held notions from non-negotiable doctrines has always seemed to me an unhelpful exercise in obfuscation.

[_beastie]

DCP -

In case you hadn't noticed, a feasible geographic setting for the Book of Mormon is a crucial issue in supporting its claim of ancient origin. If there is a God, you would think he would have some minimal awareness of that cruel fact, but the reality is that this God was quite willing to mislead Joseph Smith on the topic, as well as allow church leaders to teach incorrect ideas from the pulpit.

[_Daniel Peterson]

In case you hadn't noticed, a feasible geographic setting for the Book of Mormon is a crucial issue in supporting its claim of ancient origin.

Condescension duly marked. I expect that I "noticed" that many years before the thought ever entered your mind.

If there is a God, you would think he would have some minimal awareness of that cruel fact

I'll bet that God noticed it even before I did.

but the reality is that this God was quite willing to mislead Joseph Smith on the topic

I confess that I missed that.

as well as allow church leaders to teach incorrect ideas from the pulpit.

I don't believe in a divine puppet-master, but I do believe in progressive revelation and in the concept of learning "line upon line, precept on precept." Always have.

I think you're working a bit too hard in order to try to manufacture a theological crisis here. It won't work with me, anyway, so I suggest that you save your effort on this score for someone else.

[_beastie]

If you realize that a feasible geographic location is imperative for belief in the ancient origin of the Book of Mormon, then why did you pretend as if it were an irrelevant, minor detail that God wasn't interested enough in to convey correctly to church leaders for all these years?

You question whether or not God misled Joseph Smith. Are you denying that Joseph Smith believed in the hemispheric model? I know some attempt to deny this, but it's quite foolish to do so. Are you denying that Joseph Smith formed his beliefs regarding the ancient Americans not just through the Book of Mormon, but through actual visitations by angelic visitors?

The idea that an appropriate geographic location for the Book of Mormon is some sort of higher precept (line upon line, let the simpletons believe a harmless fallacy for hundreds of years, it's inconsequential) is laughable. What, did people's minds have to be "prepared" in some way to accept the REAL TRUTH about the Book of Mormon??? Lol.

[_Trevor]

I am still waiting for someone to suggest a scenario (geographical, archaeological, etc.) in which the ancient Book of Mormon actually makes some sense.

[_beastie]

I am still waiting for someone to suggest a scenario (geographical, archaeological, etc.) in which the ancient Book of Mormon actually makes some sense.

Oh, I think it will happen around the same time we prove that aliens built the Egyptian pyramids.

[_Trevor]

Oh, I think it will happen around the same time we prove that aliens built the Egyptian pyramids.

I am completely open to the possibility, beastie. Not that the aliens built the pyramids, but to a scenario in which one might imagine the Book of Mormon plausibly being ancient. The current attempts to make the text work as an actual ancient document are terribly flawed. They look like a collection of ad hoc hypotheses. With some of them, you would think that the entire point is to create a Book of Mormon interpretation that is completely beyond reasonable attempts at falsification. I can completely understand why someone might have a spiritual testimony of the Book of Mormon, but a scholarly conviction as to its antiquity? No. I can't see that.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If you realize that a feasible geographic location is imperative for belief in the ancient origin of the Book of Mormon, then why did you pretend as if it were an irrelevant, minor detail that God wasn't interested enough in to convey correctly to church leaders for all these years?

(1) Saying that "a feasible geographic location is imperative for belief in the ancient origin of the Book of Mormon" is quite a different proposition from saying that "a feasible geographic setting for the Book of Mormon is a crucial issue in supporting its claim of ancient origin." You're equivocating. Moving the goalposts. The first proposition, for example, is false. People who have never given the geography of the Book of Mormon a moment's thought have still believed in its ancient origin, as have people who have held to geographical views that, in my opinion and certainly in yours, were not "feasible." The latter statement is distinct and is true, because it says that a feasible geography is crucial for many arguments that attempt to construct a case supporting the book's antiquity.

(2) I agree with the latter, but see little evidence to suggest that academic cases for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon are centrally important to most people or to God.

(3) I note your insinuation that I only "pretend" to hold the views I do. As I often am, I'm left to wonder why believing Latter-day Saints aren't simply flocking here for the charming, respectful, and civil conversations that this wonderful board offers.

You question whether or not God misled Joseph Smith. Are you denying that Joseph Smith believed in the hemispheric model? I know some attempt to deny this, but it's quite foolish to do so. Are you denying that Joseph Smith formed his beliefs regarding the ancient Americans not just through the Book of Mormon, but through actual visitations by angelic visitors?

I think his views changed over time. Clearly, through much of his life, he held to a hemispheric model. Whether he always did is debatable.

It seems obvious to me that his views were based on what he regarded as revelations, but that they were also significantly impacted by his thinking and his reading (e.g., of Stephens and Calderwood). This is not fundamentally different from the process through which any other Latter-day Saint arrives at his or her views on the matter. The long-standing FARMS motto, taken from scripture, expresses this nicely enough: "By study, and also by faith."

The idea that an appropriate geographic location for the Book of Mormon is some sort of higher precept (line upon line, let the simpletons believe a harmless fallacy for hundreds of years, it's inconsequential) is laughable. What, did people's minds have to be "prepared" in some way to accept the REAL TRUTH about the Book of Mormon??? Lol.

LOL!!!! Laughable! Hahaha!

I hold no such view.

I don't regard it as a "higher precept." I regard it as relatively peripheral.

Your complacently superior laughter would look considerably less foolish if, before you began your rather forced guffaws, you actually understood your target's viewpoint.

****

I am still waiting for someone to suggest a scenario (geographical, archaeological, etc.) in which the ancient Book of Mormon actually makes some sense.

Whereas I, by contrast, with my own fair amount of training in ancient history and languages, think it already does.

The difference between us, I suspect, is not so much one of differing facts as one of differing worldviews and variant prior assumptions. Unless and until your worldview and assumptions change, you will not see a scenario that makes sense to you.