T
TexanKnight
Guest
ok…but that would change at any given time, tooThen, perhaps, a doctrinal statement that there is no doctrine!
- Status
T
taylorf
Guest
As he scans google earth to try to locate Zarahemla, I hope he read the fine print in the Mormon Codex regarding nephite navigation…
The names for directions translated in the text as “east,” “west,” “north,” and “south” were culturally nuanced terms that, while related to today’s meanings, cannot safely be assumed to be equivalents of what those four terms mean today.
He might be headed in the wrong direction.
L
lax16
Guest
It seems all cultures have used a form of Cardinal direction. I don’t think it would be too hard to figure out what the equivalents to east, west, north, and south are…
Funny that the fine print actually says that!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_direction
Cardinal direction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In Mesoamerica and North America, many traditional indigenous beliefs include four cardinal directions and a center. Each direction was associated with a color, which varied between groups but which generally corresponded to the hues of corn (green, black, red, white, and yellow). There seems to be no “preferred” way of assigning these colors; as shown in the table, great variety in color symbolism occurs even among cultures that are close neighbors geographically.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Sounds like a game of pin-the-tale-on-the-donkey.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
More like reserving the right to call east, south and west, north if it makes our favorite BoM placement fit better. Just like the “best fit” guesstimation travel times and distances used to plot the BoM old world journey.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I don’t think Tom has the view they lied, but rather, they were opinionated and their opinions were wrong.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
that cannot work. To believe they were opinions one must first see something like, “I believe” in front of what they said. That was not the case. The comments were, as I have posted, very definitive.
Second, as they were prophets, and claimed to speak to God and Jesus, it is not fathomable that, had they been wrong in their definitive statements that God would not have told them they were wrong. D&C is full of verses where God told js he was wrong or that someone was else was wrong. So, it is not like God speaking up about Cumorah would have been something new.
Third, since later prophets and apostles were also just as definitive, it would seem God for SURE would have stopped them if the “opinions” were wrong.
No. The typical escape position of “what they said were opinions” does not work here. js and the other either lied, or they were not prophets.
I suppose there is a third option: God simply had no clue. Maybe the lds god, having once been a sinful man, simply did not know.
L
lax16
Guest
If JS and Oliver Cowdery got it wrong on “all the circumstances attending the coming forth of the Book of Mormon…” then what hope is there?
[“Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and many of the early brethren, who were familiar with all the circumstances attending the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in this dispensation, have left us a pointed testimony as to the identity and location of Cumorah or Ramah.”(Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 174-175, Bookcraft 1966)](“Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and many of the early brethren, who were familiar with all the circumstances attending the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in this dispensation, have left us a pointed testimony as to the identity and location of Cumorah or Ramah.”(Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 174-175, Bookcraft 1966))
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Hello TK, I agree, but Tom does not (yet). So asking him about Mormon prophets lying isn’t going to go anywhere.
Your point here, regarding God not saying it is wrong, is interesting because Mormon apologists give this as an “answer” to Mormon critics. Such as, in the case of OT polygamy they’ll say it was desired by God, otherwise, if it were not God would have told them it was wrong.
If this logic is applied to the idea of opinionated prophets, then nothing they say is ever wrong unless/until their God gives a correction.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Agreed, I don’t think the got it wrong defense works for the explicit and absolute claims of Mormonism.
V
vsedriver
Guest
Joseph Smith was not an 18th Century man, he was a19th Century man. 19th century men were familiar with MesoAmerica. It had been known for 400 years by then.
Why do people always assume people of the past were stupid or uneducated?
P
Porknpie
Guest
And… Those in the 19th century were well capable of writing a book of fiction.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
especially when they lift huge chunks of it from the KJV of the Bible
T
TOmNossor
Guest
TexanKnight:
I don’t think Tom has the view they lied, but rather, they were opinionated and their opinions were wrong.
Thank you for pointing this out. Yours would be a fairly accurate way of describing my position. My brevity must preclude me getting across my thoughts.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Here is what I have already offered:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11763860&postcount=217
Wonderful article espousing the same thing I had been saying for years.
mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine
Harold B. Lee:
If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.
Now the simplest and most basic definition of the term “doctrine” is “the teaching of some group” That definition will not work when examining the truth claims for Mormonism (or Catholicism). I try to respect what I know about “binding doctrine” or “Dogma” or “irreformable doctrine” when I analyze Catholicism.
Charity, TOm
T
TexanKnight
Guest
and I have shown how your position is not tenable. Your silence is construed as acquiescence
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
T
TexanKnight
Guest
you have. Tom has refused to respond to the posts regarding lds ever-changing doctrine.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
If we’re sticking to “binding doctrines”, Mormons have very few and I think are embodied ONLY in their Articles of Faith. All else are expected to change, as changing doctrines are viewed by Mormons as “revelation”.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
for what constitutes LDS doctrine.
I think I’ve sent you on a snipe hunt, so I wouldn’t spend a lot of time on it if I were you.
I think the most correct statement is that there is no authoritative statement concerning precisely what is binding LDS doctrine and what is not. So indeed a snipe hunt.
I think I offered two positive things, the Harold B. Lee statement and the recent newsroom statement.
Long ago on a board with LDS, Catholic, Protestant, and Atheist moderators the following thread discussed this issue. I saved it because I thought it was valuable.
web.archive.org/web/20030718081706/http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm47.showMessageRange?topicID=89.topic&start=1&stop=20
But, for the Catholic who has the CCC there is no codification of LDS doctrine like that.
Charity, TOm
- Status