The Responsibility of Church Leaders....

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Ray A

Re: The Responsibility of Church Leaders....

Post by _Ray A »

barrelomonkeys wrote:
truth dancer wrote:
In other words, I'm rather convinced that the majority of scholars and church leaders have let go of the HGT and all that goes with this and yet, there are still believing members convinced in its truth who have never heard of the LGT.

~dancer~


What is HGT and LGT?


Joseph Smith did not understand the geography of the Book of Mormon. He was the translator, not the interpreter. For example, he did not know that Jerusalem had walls. Much of the information in the Book of Mormon was beyond his worldly knowledge. His views on geography vascillated, and there are some statements from him which seem to favour a limited setting, but he made no final, authoratitive statements on this. Some of his followers speculated that the HGT, or hemispheric model, covered the whole of the Americas, North, Central, and South, with the Panama canal as the "narrow neck of land", and these views were accepted by many. There are indications, however, going back to the 19th century, that the Book of Mormon had a limited setting. When scholars like Sorenson looked more closely at the Book of Mormon, they realised that the limited setting was more plausible, because of geographical descriptions in the Book of Mormon, and the time and distances of travels recorded in the book. So the LGT, or Limited Geographical Model, seemed more plausible. That Joseph Smith did not understand this is more reason not to believe he wrote the Book of Mormon. The internal geographical descriptions seem consistent with a limited setting, or LGT, and this is what Sorenson tried to get across in his articles to Church members.

Hope that rough outline helps.
_gramps
_Emeritus
Posts: 2485
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:43 pm

Post by _gramps »

About the LGT and the HGT:

Ray A got the summary about right. But he did leave out the accounts from Joseph's mother that indicate, even before the Book came out, Joseph was sitting around the fire with his family, telling them all about the former inhabitants of the American continents. At that time, he seemed to know quite a bit about the book, according to his mother. Wasn't his knowledge coming from Moroni on his yearly visits to see how Joseph was doing until the big day when he could open the box and take the plates?

Just to add on a little bit. Blake Ostler I believe is arguing for some island somewhere as the location (someone correct me if I am wrong). I think I read this on the sunstone blog somewhere.

There is some other guy (a faithful Mormon it appears) arguing for a Thailand/Malaysia connection. That one cracks me up. What on earth is he thinking? Where in heaven's name would the Hill Cumorah be in that scenario? Has anyone heard of this one?
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland
_Inconceivable
_Emeritus
Posts: 3405
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:44 am

Post by _Inconceivable »

I find myself impatient sometimes when I read some threads. Good points, Truth Dancer.

I taught Gospel Doctrine off and on for the past 23 years. First at BYU after the mission, inbetween EQ, Young men's
and SS pres etc. It was my favorite job next to being with my boys in young men. The last stint was about 2 1/2 years
before being asked to teach the 15/16 years olds for several months. It was something that brought me a great deal of
enjoyment and satisfaction. I was teaching Church History when I asked to be released.

I have always been disappointed with the uninspired, faith destroying, platitudical way the teaching manuals have been
written - in almost every position I've taught in.

There is a directive in all manuals that exhorts teachers to #1 teach by
the spirit but to #2 stick to the curiculum without adding to it from anything more than the standard works and the Ensign.

If I were teaching the Book of Mormon, I would study the chapters in the reading assignment and toss the manual - always.
I taught it as if it were true. I had no reason at that time to think otherwise. My classes were well attended, and many
participated after recognizing the disarming nature of my teaching style. I never touched on geography, the real world value
of a stupid senum or expected everyone to get the time line down. I taught life lessons. It pleased me that many would
remain sitting just to enjoy the enviroment created following the closing prayer. I felt well connected with most everyone in
the class regardless of the size.

I never heard of the Limited Geography or other theories.

So long as there are EQ lesson manuals entitled "Teachings of the Prophet Brigham Young", where they have eliminated
the plural of wife in every instant, the membership will just have to stumble upon the truth by themselves - and then
get angry like I did.

I don't particularly predict a mass exodus, but I think the leadership is now troubled by those that have opted out that have
yet to committ adultery, smoke a joint or vote for a democrat.

It will be interesting what kind of damage control they will concoct over the next few years - since they will never tell the truth.

anyway, my .02
_gramps
_Emeritus
Posts: 2485
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:43 pm

Post by _gramps »

Inconceivable wrote:

I don't particularly predict a mass exodus, but I think the leadership is now troubled by those that have opted out that have
yet to committ adultery, smoke a joint or vote for a democrat.


I get the feeling that they are very concerned and that the exodus is perhaps bigger than we think. Mission Presidents, Stake Presidents, Bishops, et al. There are new people coming on to the recovery boards all the time. Mass exodus, I don't know. But, serious exodus, I would be willing to agree with.

My .02.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Post by _Gazelam »

There is some other guy (a faithful Mormon it appears) arguing for a Thailand/Malaysia connection. That one cracks me up. What on earth is he thinking? Where in heaven's name would the Hill Cumorah be in that scenario? Has anyone heard of this one?


Yeh, I stumbled across that a while ago and posted a link. That guy was pretty wild.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_gramps
_Emeritus
Posts: 2485
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:43 pm

Post by _gramps »

Gazelam wrote:
There is some other guy (a faithful Mormon it appears) arguing for a Thailand/Malaysia connection. That one cracks me up. What on earth is he thinking? Where in heaven's name would the Hill Cumorah be in that scenario? Has anyone heard of this one?


Yeh, I stumbled across that a while ago and posted a link. That guy was pretty wild.


Did you read everything? I couldn't get through it. I was laughing so hard. But, for sure, he is really serious.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland
_barrelomonkeys
_Emeritus
Posts: 3004
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm

Post by _barrelomonkeys »

I hope this isn't a hijack. Should I start a new thread? If LDS can say that not all of the Bible is inerrant do they believe the Book of Mormon is inerrant? I see these threads all the time discussing the Book of Mormon and trying to defend what it says.... I don't understand this. Do LDS believe the Bible is inerrant too?
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Post by _Gazelam »

The question isn't one of inerrency. The Book of Mormon is viewed as better because it only went through two hands in transcription before it came to us.

Scriptures are just tools in gaining the spirit the scriptures were written in. All scripture was written by men explaining as best they could their experiences with God. The idea is to emulate what they did so that we can have the same experiences.

The Bible and the Book of Mormon and all other scripture are of equal worth. It's like asking what tool in the toolbox is better, the hammer or the screwdriver or the wrench. What I need right now is the tape measure, maybe later I'll grab the hammer to deal with the problem at hand.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_gramps
_Emeritus
Posts: 2485
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:43 pm

Post by _gramps »

barrelomonkeys wrote:I hope this isn't a hijack. Should I start a new thread? If LDS can say that not all of the Bible is inerrant do they believe the Book of Mormon is inerrant? I see these threads all the time discussing the Book of Mormon and trying to defend what it says.... I don't understand this. Do LDS believe the Bible is inerrant too?


Well, the Bible is the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. The Book of Mormon is the most correct book. But, even Joseph changed some of that around through revelations in the D&C, if I remember correctly.

The Book of Abraham wasn't even considered scripture until the 1900's.

The Manifesto (the first one) wasn't canonized for a long time after. Someone help me with the dates. Can't remember now.

The D&C had a lot of changes. Don't know of any recently, however.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland
_barrelomonkeys
_Emeritus
Posts: 3004
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm

Post by _barrelomonkeys »

Gaz, I'm not comparing the two. I'm asking why the apologetics feel they have to defend everything in the Book of Mormon? I don't understand this. I saw things on MAD about DNA and elephants and such... I just sort of ignored it. If LDS don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve (do they?) then why the preoccupation with proving everything in the Book of Mormon to be accurate?

I've been reading the Bible lately.. I had an odd experience when I read the Book of Mormon and I may continue reading it at some point... but if someone told me I would have to believe it (not just look to it for closeness to a deity) I'd question if I could do so.
Post Reply