Three Questions (Split from, ‘Vogel Responds …’)

[Marcus]

I find it fascinating that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is now considered a peripheral issue by some. I recall discussions in past years here regarding whether the LDS church would ever reach the point where the leadership could admit that the book was fictional, and the opinions were divided. This new strategy of downplaying the historicity issue by defining it as 'peripheral' to core LDS doctrine --even though it is absolutely central to the LDS religion-- is a big step in that direction. It's ironic that relying on members to not know the core doctrines of their religion turns out to be a key strategy in advancing that effort.

[I Have Questions]

These two links solidify the core teachings and doctrines of the CofJCofLDS:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... trines.pdf

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng

From the newsroom link.

VOLUNTEER MINISTRY The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints functions in large mea- sure because of the unpaid volunteer ministry of its members. In thousands of local congregations or “wards” around the world, members voluntarily participate in “callings” or assignments that provide meaningful opportunities to serve one another. It is common for Church members to spend 5–10 hours a week serving in their callings. Some callings, such as a bishop, women’s Relief Society president, or stake president may require 15–30 hours per week.

That’s lying - by only telling part of the truth.
The Church has a significant paid ministry above the level of Stake President.

From the newsroom link.

TITHING AND CHARITABLE DONATIONS For Latter-day Saints, tithing is a natural and integrated aspect of their religious belief and practice. By the biblical definition, tithing is one-tenth, and Church members interpret this as a tenth of their “increase,” or income, annually.

Members don’t interpret what it means at all. The Church articulates what it means.

It’s a shame that even in an explanation of core doctrines, the church cannot bring itself to tell the truth.

From your second link.

Through grace, made available by the Savior’s atoning sacrifice, all people will be resurrected and receive immortality. The Atonement of Jesus Christ also makes it possible for us to receive eternal life (see Moroni 7:41). To receive this gift, we must live the gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes having faith in Him, repenting of our sins, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring faithfully to the end (see John 3:5).

Please can you explain the difference between “immortality” (which all people receive) and “eternal life” (which only baptised, faithful Mormons receive)? Because immortality and eternal life seem to me to be one and the same thing.

Immortality is the concept of eternal life.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortality

[Kishkumen]

VOLUNTEER MINISTRY The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints functions in large measure because of the unpaid volunteer ministry of its members.

I don't see how this is untrue. "In large measure" is not saying "completely."

[MG 2.0]

I find it fascinating that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is now considered a peripheral issue by some. I recall discussions in past years here regarding whether the LDS church would ever reach the point where the leadership could admit that the book was fictional, and the opinions were divided.

I need to jump in and add some clarity. As I’ve already explained the Book of Mormon contains doctrine. Book of Mormon historicity, as I’ve also said, is an unresolved issue. What needs to be clear, however, is that this doesn’t in turn mean the Book of Mormon is fictional. That’s where the faith comes in that there will continue to be additional evidence along the way that points to its historicity. Personally I doubt that there will be absolute proof one way or the other. My guess is that most members believe that there were Nephites/Lamanites but are also aware that the evidence is not all in on the locality/geography of where the history took place.

The leadership will never teach that the book was fictional.

Some Bishops and SP’s here and there might have questions, etc., but the church as a whole will always believe that Zarahemla existed in real time and in a real place.

Just want to get that straight.

This new strategy of downplaying the historicity issue by defining it as 'peripheral' to core LDS doctrine --even though it is absolutely central to the LDS religion-- is a big step in that direction.

Members are free to have their own opinions/theories in regards to Book of Mormon historicity and geography. But the position of the church won’t change.

What IS core are the doctrines of Atonement, Baptism, Godhead, Faith, HG, Repentance, Eternal Progression, Prophets, Resurrection, Salvation/Exaltation, Priesthood, Sealings, Obedience/Blessings, Accountability, etc.

You know what they are.

It's ironic that relying on members to not know the core doctrines of their religion turns out to be a key strategy in advancing that effort.

Non sequitur.

Carry on.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I find it fascinating that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is now considered a peripheral issue by some. I recall discussions in past years here regarding whether the LDS church would ever reach the point where the leadership could admit that the book was fictional, and the opinions were divided.

I need to jump in and add some clarity. As I’ve already explained the Book of Mormon contains doctrine. Book of Mormon historicity, as I’ve also said, is an unresolved issue....

Here's what you said:

... the Book of Mormon isn’t ITSELF doctrine ...

and

...Book of Mormon is a peripheral to the core doctrines. It is not ‘a doctrine’...

Hence my point:

I find it fascinating that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is now considered a peripheral issue by some...

This new strategy of downplaying the historicity issue by defining it as 'peripheral' to core LDS doctrine --even though it is absolutely central to the LDS religion-- is a big step in that direction. It's ironic that relying on members to not know the core doctrines of their religion turns out to be a key strategy in advancing that effort.

[honorentheos]

MG seems confused about what having issue with core doctrines might look like but I think he's right that the core doctrines are foundational to the church's claims.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on what ‘peripheral’ issues are. Book of Mormon historicity, First Vision Accounts, Priesthood restoration issues, etc. are all, as I’ve said, unresolved.

What you define as core doctrines rely on these issues for evidence they actually exist. One doesn't just claim the church has priesthood authority. One has to demonstrate through evidence this is a fact.

What do you suppose supports the church having priesthood authority if not for the items you noted above?

[I Have Questions]

I need to jump in and add some clarity. As I’ve already explained the Book of Mormon contains doctrine. Book of Mormon historicity, as I’ve also said, is an unresolved issue. What needs to be clear, however, is that this doesn’t in turn mean the Book of Mormon is fictional.

Equally, it doesn’t in turn mean the Book of Mormon is non-fiction. As you say, proving the Book of Mormon is non-fiction has not been achieved. I’m unaware of anything about it that’s been demonstrated as being non-fiction. The original explanation of how it came to be has changed over the years, as has the assertion about the peoples described within it. Those changes aren’t the hallmarks of real historicity. Given its place in the coming to be of the Church, I’m amazed you view its credibility as peripheral. It’s the core of the church’s missionary programme. Without it you’re simply a member of a Protestant sect.

If the Church officially acknowledged the Book of Mormon as fictional, would you leave the church?

[honorentheos]

What IS core are the doctrines of...Accountability

While you appear to be saying this in regards to judgement after death, if you do believe accountability is a core doctrine of the LDS faith then how do you imagine accountability is possible if one also asserts that evidence supporting claims are merely peripheral?

Evidence cannot be maintained as separate from the claims that rely on the evidence to establish their primacy.

Accepting there was an atonement demands the New Testament be largely historical.

Mormon views on the godhead demand both the evidence for the Judeo-Christian religious tradition being fact but also that the majority of that tradition is wrong about God while one needs evidence the Mormons have it right. Enter the first vision...

Faith, repentance, baptism...these are practices that only have meaning if there is reason to accept the LDS church in SLC is the chosen vehicle of the Judeo-Christian God defined by Mormonism.

You can't detach the evidence from the claims that these socalled doctrines are core. Calling the supporting evidence peripheral is dismissing the evidence that those doctrines rely on to be accepted as anything other than assertions by the LDS faith. That is essentially saying people should pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

[malkie]

What IS core are the doctrines of...Accountability

While you appear to be saying this in regards to judgement after death, if you do believe accountability is a core doctrine of the LDS faith then how do you imagine accountability is possible if one also asserts that evidence supporting claims are merely peripheral?

Evidence cannot be maintained as separate from the claims that rely on the evidence to establish their primacy.

Accepting there was an atonement demands the New Testament be largely historical.

Mormon views on the godhead demand both the evidence for the Judeo-Christian religious tradition being fact but also that the majority of that tradition is wrong about God while one needs evidence the Mormons have it right. Enter the first vision...

Faith, repentance, baptism...these are practices that only have meaning if there is reason to accept the LDS church in SLC is the chosen vehicle of the Judeo-Christian God defined by Mormonism.

You can't detach the evidence from the claims that these socalled doctrines are core. Calling the supporting evidence peripheral is dismissing the evidence that those doctrines rely on to be accepted as anything other than assertions by the LDS faith. That is essentially saying people should pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

As I commented in another thread, the canonized version of the First Vision is not adequate to the task that is usually assigned to it: showing that the young Joseph Smith had an interview with God and Jesus. His own words are missing the essential information about who the "Personages" were. Even if the event happened as described, we are left with no idea as to who he encountered in the grove.
viewtopic.php?p=2843219#p2843219

[honorentheos]

As I commented in another thread, the canonized version of the First Vision is not adequate to the task that is usually assigned to it: showing that the young Joseph Smith had an interview with God and Jesus. His own words are missing the essential information about who the "Personages" were. Even if the event happened as described, we are left with no idea as to who he encountered in the grove.
viewtopic.php?p=2843219#p2843219

Excellent points.

In essence MG is just restating the "hold to the rod" argument. Evidence in the here and now isn't important, just maintain faith until the end when Mormonism will be proven right. He's trying to make it sound more noble than just arguing folks should take the word of the Church, but that's what the whole argument about core doctrine reduces down to here.