Limited Geography Question

[_Buffalo]

The LGT is preposterous.

The Church has taken an "official stance" against a core element of that theory -- that is, the location of the Hill Cumorah. Many officials, including members of the FP, have stated that the ancient and modern Cumorah are one and the same; in particular, these statements were made in the general conference immediately following the purchase of the Hill Cumorah. And, the most heavily cited doctrinal treatise used in General Conference, still in publication, Doctrines of Salvation, comes out specifically and cleanly against that element of the LGT.

The Church has not commented upon the location of other items, such as Zarahemla or the narrow neck of land

But, a Nephite altar in Missouri is not inconsistent with the Sorenson heresy.

So the opening post basically browbeats believers and the Church with the Sorenson heresy. One of the great weaknesses of Mormon apologia is that they almost all to a person sign on to this heresy.

These heretics are quick to point out that critics never understood church doctrine. :o

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

The LGT is preposterous.

The Church has taken an "official stance" against a core element of that theory -- that is, the location of the Hill Cumorah. Many officials, including members of the FP, have stated that the ancient and modern Cumorah are one and the same; in particular, these statements were made in the general conference immediately following the purchase of the Hill Cumorah. And, the most heavily cited doctrinal treatise used in General Conference, still in publication, Doctrines of Salvation, comes out specifically and cleanly against that element of the LGT.

The Church has not commented upon the location of other items, such as Zarahemla or the narrow neck of land

But, a Nephite altar in Missouri is not inconsistent with the Sorenson heresy.

So the opening post basically browbeats believers and the Church with the Sorenson heresy. One of the great weaknesses of Mormon apologia is that they almost all to a person sign on to this heresy.

Yahoo Bot,

Wow. I'm actually 100% in agreement with you.

[_Mad Viking]

So the opening post basically browbeats believers and the Church with the Sorenson heresy...

Don't be so dramatic. The OP does no such thing. I was attempting to get those who do sign up to the LGT to address the location of this Nephite altar within the frame work of the LGT. I NEVER made any assertion that the church or any number of believers ascribe to the LGT. Nice try.

[_Yahoo Bot]

But what is more preposterous? A person who believes in a harmless heresy or a person who pretends to be a good churchgoer but instead who attacks the Brethren anonymously on this board?

[_Mad Viking]

But what is more preposterous? A person who believes in a harmless heresy or a person who pretends to be a good churchgoer but instead who attacks the Brethren anonymously on this board?

Personally, I find loaded adjectives preposterous.

Who exactly are you referring to with your latter category of individual?

[_Buffalo]

But what is more preposterous? A person who believes in a harmless heresy or a person who pretends to be a good churchgoer but instead who attacks the Brethren anonymously on this board?

Harmless heresy? These apologists are taking it upon themselves to steady the ark. They think they're qualified to determine when prophets are speaking with revelation and when they're speaking as men. The brethren don't see that as harmless. The whole "steady the ark" meme suggests they think this activity might merit a death penalty.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Harmless heresy? These apologists are taking it upon themselves to steady the ark. They think they're qualified to determine when prophets are speaking with revelation and when they're speaking as men. The brethren don't see that as harmless. The whole "steady the ark" meme suggests they think this activity might merit a death penalty.

And I don't think you have legitimate standing to make that argument. Sort of like hearing you criticizing a Mason for not wearing the correct color apron.

Who exactly are you referring to with your latter category of individual?

You mean, "whom?" I mean, you.

[_Buffalo]

Harmless heresy? These apologists are taking it upon themselves to steady the ark. They think they're qualified to determine when prophets are speaking with revelation and when they're speaking as men. The brethren don't see that as harmless. The whole "steady the ark" meme suggests they think this activity might merit a death penalty.

And I don't think you have legitimate standing to make that argument. Sort of like hearing you criticizing a Mason for not wearing the correct color apron.

I've got plenty of legitimate standing to make it. I'm just as apostate as any apologist, only I'm more honest with myself about it.

[_Yahoo Bot]

I've got plenty of legitimate standing to make it. I'm just as apostate as any apologist, only I'm more honest with myself about it.

People without standing always claim standing, otherwise they wouldn't have made the comment in the first place. I have no standing to complain about the Catholic church's deviations from canonical law. You have no standing to make arguments about how the Church should follow its rules and, further, a cowardly anonymite is in an even worse position.

[_Buffalo]

I've got plenty of legitimate standing to make it. I'm just as apostate as any apologist, only I'm more honest with myself about it.

People without standing always claim standing, otherwise they wouldn't have made the comment in the first place. I have no standing to complain about the Catholic church's deviations from canonical law. You have no standing to make arguments about how the Church should follow its rules and, further, a cowardly anonymite is in an even worse position.

Well Mr. Bot (or is it Dr. Bot?), as a lifelong member who served a faithful mission, is married in the temple and pays a full tithe to Corporation of the President, I'd say I have just as much standing as any other heretic, apologist or no.