In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[mfbukowski]

He's baaaaaaack!

I just couldn't stay away from you sweetie pie!

[DanGB]

I just couldn't stay away from you sweetie pie!

I know babe, it's a board of love!

[Greg Smith]

He's a doctor and likely rather busy himself this time of year.

An email wouldn't really do anything more than provide the info that's already been given. The quality of a fax of a fax isn't that great from what I've seen. If he plans on doing a scan of material, best to have as close to the original letter as possible....which leaves you with snail mail.

To put everyone's mind at ease (ha!) I am still waiting for the docs. They have been mailed, by ground. (The Watson letter was only one in a large collection of documents being sent to me about an unrelated matter; my contact threw it in because he knew I'd be interested. There were too many to fax effectively.)

So, my enthusiasm has not waned, though it is taking longer than I thought because it was shipped by ground to Canada instead of air. I don't have a tracking number, but my days at the MTC tell me that the letter time from Utah to Alberta can be as long as 10 days even for a simple letter. Don't ask me why; I could get letters from Alberta to France faster.

Rest assured, I will still post it as soon as it is in my hot little hands here in the frozen north.

Greg

[Greg Smith]

Maybe you're right. But email and fax take a couple of minutes. Even mail to Canada only takes a couple of days. I was just wondering if there was either a change of heart, truth or facts? Smith initially seemed very excited and sure about the timing of things over a week ago. But that was the last we heard from him!

It's the last you heard because:

a> there is nothing else to report yet;

b> it's winter and the middle of H1N1 season

c> I also practice obstetrics, and there was something in the water hereabouts 9 months ago.....

Nothing has changed, save my estimate of mail times from US to Canada.

Patience, grasshoppers.....

GLS

[DanGB]

It's the last you heard because:

a> there is nothing else to report yet;

b> it's winter and the middle of H1N1 season

c> I also practice obstetrics, and there was something in the water hereabouts 9 months ago.....

Nothing has changed, save my estimate of mail times from US to Canada.

Patience, grasshoppers.....

GLS

Wow, hope you get through the epidemic and it does not get too serious. Tough season for flu and kids. Good luck.

Thanks for update.

BTW, have you had a chance to communicate with Dan Peterson regarding the discovery of this second Watson letter? From his posts here, he was very much involved in it's original issuance to Hamblin and was sure the original letter/fax/email was lost forever. He must be somewhat relieved to know it now still exists.

Sounds like you have many interested in finally seeing it!!

[Calm]

Nothing has changed, save my estimate of mail times from US to Canada.

We have some take two weeks once.

Then there was the time it got delivered to an address across the city (it was a packet of photos so the woman called us up rather than just putting them back into the mailbox in case they were mislaid.

We also had several letters end up in limbo, never to be seen again.

I was quite shocked from time to time with the Canadian Postal Service. Russia's was worse though.

[jmordecai]

To put everyone's mind at ease (ha!) I am still waiting for the docs. They have been mailed, by ground. (The Watson letter was only one in a large collection of documents being sent to me about an unrelated matter; my contact threw it in because he knew I'd be interested. There were too many to fax effectively.)

So, my enthusiasm has not waned, though it is taking longer than I thought because it was shipped by ground to Canada instead of air. I don't have a tracking number, but my days at the MTC tell me that the letter time from Utah to Alberta can be as long as 10 days even for a simple letter. Don't ask me why; I could get letters from Alberta to France faster.

Rest assured, I will still post it as soon as it is in my hot little hands here in the frozen north.

Greg

I trust though that the Watson letter was copied or scanned before it was sent in the mail, lest it 'get lost in the mail'?

[Greg Smith]

I trust though that the Watson letter was copied or scanned before it was sent in the mail, lest it 'get lost in the mail'?

I was told I was getting a copy of the original, so I expect this is the case, yes.

BTW, have you had a chance to communicate with Dan Peterson regarding the discovery of this second Watson letter? From his posts here, he was very much involved in it's original issuance to Hamblin and was sure the original letter/fax/email was lost forever. He must be somewhat relieved to know it now still exists.

I doubt Dan has worried too much. (And he may, like me, suspect that providing the letter isn't going to prevent the on-going carping on this topic in some quarters. The heart wants what it wants, after all.) :-)

The idea that FARMS would fake, forge, or misrepresent a letter from the First Presidency is just...well...bizarre. That's the sort of thing that gets you stern talkings to or loss of employ at the church's University. The truth would out eventually, and then things are worse than before.

I suspect the reason that the letter has only now turned up is that no one at FARMS/NAMI was at all worried about it. They could have asked Sorenson; it was in his files. So, if there had been a need to find it and an appeal had gone out, Sorenson had it. From what I've seen as a peripherally involved outsider, no one at FARMS/NAMI has given the matter much thought. They saw the letter, printed the text, and moved on. It turned up in going through Sorenson's files after his retirement.

So, while it may be "nice" to prove the letter exists (conspiracy thinking not withstanding, or fears that I am being played the patsy so it can be 'lost in the mail') I doubt it will shift the discussion on this point much, and others will simply begin to insist that the second letter doesn't correct the first letter, even though the annotation on the second indicates that it's being given for precisely that purpose.

And the world spins madly on, the sun will come up in the east, and people will still fall in love....

Maybe I'm wrong, but given the continued enthusiasm of the critics for really, really, really stupid arguments that were bad 150 years ago when first authored, I'm not optimistic on this laying the matter to rest. Sincere inquisitors will, of course, perhaps be happy to see the letter scan and move on. [i apply these remarks to no one in particular on this thread or elsewhere; I'm just making a prediction based on 'sad experience.' Hopefully, my prophetic gifts are lax on this Friday morning.]

GLS

[DanGB]

Greg,

Thanks for your update. Any news today or still "in the mail"? Alberta must be "way up there"! Just kiddin!

Hope the pandemic has subsided up there.

Just out of curiosity, what was your motivation to publish this second Watson letter? I ask only because you believe it will add little value to the discussions and debates of the past?

Thanks

[Daniel Peterson]

BTW, have you had a chance to communicate with Dan Peterson regarding the discovery of this second Watson letter? From his posts here, he was very much involved in it's original issuance to Hamblin and was sure the original letter/fax/email was lost forever. He must be somewhat relieved to know it now still exists.

Just to get some things straight (since the sheer quantity of conspiratorial fantasies that some apparently continue to generate on this matter is nothing short of staggering):

Dr. Smith and I have not communicated regarding the apparent "discovery" of this (copy of the?) second letter. I've been in Australia since 30 November; I just returned this afternoon. (Look for me on Iranian TV!)

I wasn't "involved" in any way "in its original issuance to Hamblin." As far as I know, Bill wrote to the Office of the First Presidency. This letter was its reply. I knew nothing of the letter until Professor Hamblin showed it to me.

I was aware of no copy of the letter to Professor Hamblin, and, when he told me that he had lost it, I believed him. (I still do. I have no reason to regard him as a liar on this or any other topic.) If Professor Sorenson has a copy of it in his files, or possesses the original, that's news to me.

It's welcome news, too, although I haven't lost any sleep about the letter. The notion that Bill, or Bill and I, or Bill and I and the other editors of the FARMS Review, or (for that matter) the entire faculty and staff of the Maxwell Institute forged a letter from the First Presidency and published it is simply too ridiculous to take seriously, and has never been taken seriously, so far as I can see, by more than a very small partial handful of conspiracy hobbyists -- essentially my Malevolent Stalker and, at most, maybe three or four of his more fevered and gullible disciples. Anybody who really believes us likely to have done such a foolhardy and unethical thing will scarcely be dissuaded by the mere recovery of a copy of this letter from imagining us to be unscrupulous villains. My implacably hostile Malevolent Stalker, for example, won't miss a beat. For more than three years, he never has.

Upon further and practical thought here, maybe Daniel Peterson, a fellow BYU colleague of Sorenson, could shed some light as to the new found existence of this second letter.

Nope. I know nothing at all about this development. I haven't spoken with Professor Sorenson in at least a month, and have, as mentioned, been out of the country for nearly two weeks.

I had gathered he was very involved with it's original existence

Again, no. The letter came into existence completely independent of me.

and sensed he knew all the players.

Bill Hamblin is one of my closest friends. John Sorenson is a good friend whom I've known for years; for what it's worth, too, he and his wife belong to a monthly reading group to which my wife and I also belong. I don't recall ever meeting Michael Wilcox, though.

Any truth to the recently found copy of this letter?

Probably. I have no reason to suspect that Greg Smith or John Sorenson or anybody else is joking or lying.

Any reason not to provide it as Greg Smith seemed so excited about doing last week?

None that I can think of.

May finally put a lot of erroneous past speculation to rest the way I see it!

I haven't really noticed a lot of people caring about this issue, actually.

It's a manufactured message-board controversy, and it doesn't appear to have caught on much.

.

[Daniel Peterson]

ROTFL. Here's my Malevolent Stalker's spin on the post above:

Dr. Peterson has reappeared on the thread, and it seems that our commentary has thrown him into a rage. He is carrying on about how he's been out of the country, and that, though he considers us irrelevant, he still found it necessary to log on and pound out a hate-fueled invective the moment he got off the plane. Furthermore, unless I am reading him wrong, he seems to be implying that Bill Hamblin tricked him into thinking that there was only one copy of the letter. One wonders why Hamblin would want to create this impression.

Molto bizarro.

[Cold Steel]

I have seen reference to works by LDS authors who seem extremely well credentialed and qualified to speak and address such ares of academic research and field work. But my question, for my own needs, is: has any of their works convinced the a academic world outside of what we might read in Ensign and other church sponsored publications?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you asking whether LDS research has convinced non-LDS scholars that the gospel is true, or at least credible enough to take it seriously? If so, you have much to learn about how the Lord works and also how people work.

Methodist scholar Margaret Barker has been very impressed by various aspects of the Book of Mormon and has said so in print. Even so, she has not rushed out and joined the church. Perhaps she doesn't wish to leave her roots, or perhaps no one has asked her. But as in the case of Nicodemus, intellectual testimonies don't make the same impression that spiritual testimonies do.

Father George McRae, head of the Harvard Divinity School, came to BYU a number of years ago and gave a lecture to students and faculty on the Nag Hammadi library, a Christian Gnostic library discovered in 1947 in Egypt. Many of his observations were deeply significant to his Mormon audience, but of no significance to himself. It's hard to predict what his reaction would have been had he known enough to realize that significance.

The Lord will always withhold physical proof at first, but He will not withhold evidence. You can see the characters on the gold plates, but not the gold plates themselves. You can compare the Book of Abraham with other ancient texts, but apparently the Lord is withholding the absolute evidence that will prove the work is true and correctly translated. Once proof exists, one's responsibility of accepting or rejecting the gospel falls into a completely different category. So for the sake of people and their salvation, the Lord (for His own purposes) withholds PROOF. Yet he provides enough evidence that it should provide intellectual stimulation for the honest in heart. For example, finding a candidate for Lehi's camp in Arabia is EVIDENCE. Finding Nahom in the right time and the right place is EVIDENCE. Finding candidates for Bountiful, again in the right time and place, is EVIDENCE. Chiasmus and other Hebraisms are EVIDENCE.

But they aren't PROOF. The Lord will always leave room for scoffers not to totally damn themselves for rejecting the gospel, but He will provide it, again, for the honest in heart.

Dan Peterson has addressed evidence regarding the Book of Mormon which he has drawn from numerous sources, and I find it extraordinarily compelling. (It's also available on audio CD, plugola!) And, likewise, there are books by other LDS scholars. The late Truman Madsen was authorized in 1974 to give scholars a special tour of the Washington, D.C., temple that astounded some; yet not one joined the church because of the additional information they received.

People who base their testimonies on scholarly knowledge build their houses on sand, and I've seen precious few cases where intellectual approaches convince someone that the gospel is true. It might lead some to search more, but it's power to convert is very limited.

.

[Glenn101]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you asking whether LDS research has convinced non-LDS scholars that the gospel is true, or at least credible enough to take it seriously? If so, you have much to learn about how the Lord works and also how people work.

Methodist scholar Margaret Barker has been very impressed by various aspects of the Book of Mormon and has said so in print. Even so, she has not rushed out and joined the church. Perhaps she doesn't wish to leave her roots, or perhaps no one has asked her. But as in the case of Nicodemus, intellectual testimonies don't make the same impression that spiritual testimonies do.

Father George McRae, head of the Harvard Divinity School, came to BYU a number of years ago and gave a lecture to students and faculty on the Nag Hammadi library, a Christian Gnostic library discovered in 1947 in Egypt. Many of his observations were deeply significant to his Mormon audience, but of no significance to himself. It's hard to predict what his reaction would have been had he known enough to realize that significance.

The Lord will always withhold physical proof at first, but He will not withhold evidence. You can see the characters on the gold plates, but not the gold plates themselves. You can compare the Book of Abraham with other ancient texts, but apparently the Lord is withholding the absolute evidence that will prove the work is true and correctly translated. Once proof exists, one's responsibility of accepting or rejecting the gospel falls into a completely different category. So for the sake of people and their salvation, the Lord (for His own purposes) withholds PROOF. Yet he provides enough evidence that it should provide intellectual stimulation for the honest in heart. For example, finding a candidate for Lehi's camp in Arabia is EVIDENCE. Finding Nahom in the right time and the right place is EVIDENCE. Finding candidates for Bountiful, again in the right time and place, is EVIDENCE. Chiasmus and other Hebraisms are EVIDENCE.

But they aren't PROOF. The Lord will always leave room for scoffers not to totally damn themselves for rejecting the gospel, but He will provide it, again, for the honest in heart.

Dan Peterson has addressed evidence regarding the Book of Mormon which he has drawn from numerous sources, and I find it extraordinarily compelling. (It's also available on audio CD, plugola!) And, likewise, there are books by other LDS scholars. The late Truman Madsen was authorized in 1974 to give scholars a special tour of the Washington, D.C., temple that astounded some; yet not one joined the church because of the additional information they received.

People who base their testimonies on scholarly knowledge build their houses on sand, and I've seen precious few cases where intellectual approaches convince someone that the gospel is true. It might lead some to search more, but it's power to convert is very limited.

.

Very well said.

Glenn

[DanGB]

Cold Steel,

I think you have missed the obviousness of my question and tried to turn it into a F&T meeting. It is not!

I have had the question of BOM historicity posed to me more times than I wish to admit.

My OP on this thread was a very simple request.

What drove it was the questions I receive from non - members which, are fairly logical their purpose.

If we believe that the BOM is what it claims to be, we then have the greatest claimed history of all time for which there is no substantiation for to the academic community. My friends and fellow alumni at UT Austin down here are observent, at the very least, to point out thar historians, anthropologist, and archaeologist all live for the discovery, conformation, indentification or verification of past civilizations. That is what they seek to do with a passion! And yet we have, with the BOM, perhaps the only actual translated history from an original source of gold tablets for which their seems absolutely zero interest in or of. And yet for those who are of these professions, we see imense interest in so many areas of ancient civilizations.

So my original qestion of weeks ago on this thread was merely to see what great LDS scholarship in this area of BOM history has done to wet, what should be an enormous interest of secular scholars in this area. That's all, nothing else.

I think with the passage of time, on this thread alone, the answer remains quite clear: No matter how good LDS scholarship in this area of establishing the antiiquities of the BOM within the academics of BYU, it simply has not generated any interest or convincing loyalties outside in the secular academic or peer circles of those LDS scholars.

I am sure Margaret Barker has had some great things to say as a paid participant at Church sponsored events. I have no idea what her credentials are as an archaeologist or historian. But I must admit that I know little about her.

And there is nothing wrong in admittmg that no one outside the Church accepts the scholarship in defense of BOM historicity. It just "is"!

[volgadon]

And there is nothing wrong in admittmg that no one outside the Church accepts the scholarship in defense of BOM historicity. It just "is"!

But an entirely different matter to conclude that said scholarship is somehow poor.

[cksalmon]

Molto bizarro.

Well, perhaps Greg can shut him down with an image of the WL2 originally provided to Professor Hamblin upon his inquiry. While I'm sure it will be a distinct let-down to all involved, I am curious about the time taken by the postal service. They must not be aware of the intense interest surrounding this particular package.

Greg? Haven't received it yet?

[DanGB]

But an entirely different matter to conclude that said scholarship is somehow poor.

Perhaps true. But we will never really know, if such scholarship is not on faith alone, until it draws interest from the secular academic community and understanding why it continues to be ignored after all these years.

[volgadon]

Perhaps true. But we will never really know, if such scholarship is not on faith alone, until it draws interest from the secular academic community and understanding why it continues to be ignored after all these years.

Nonsense. A sound argument is a sound argument even if not a single soul apart from its author ever reads it. Perhaps you yourself lack critical ability, which is why the academic world's stamp of approval carries such weight with you.

[Daniel Peterson]

You may have already made this clear, DanGB, but, if you have, I've missed it: On a scale of 1-10, with 10 representing thorough familiarity and 1 representing only the barest hearsay awareness, how well acquainted would you say you are with faithful Latter-day Saint scholarship on the Book of Mormon? I have no hidden agenda here; I'm simply curious. It might help me to understand where you're coming from.

[DanGB]

You may have already made this clear, DanGB, but, if you have, I've missed it: On a scale of 1-10, with 10 representing thorough familiarity and 1 representing only the barest hearsay awareness, how well acquainted would you say you are with faithful Latter-day Saint scholarship on the Book of Mormon? I have no hidden agenda here; I'm simply curious. It might help me to understand where you're coming from.

Dan,

Fair question. And on this board the mere acknowledgement of a fair question is a move forward !

I

But first, I need to know from you, if possible, what is accepted as LDS scholarship? Is it Church accepted and acknowledged in an official capacity? Or, is it "scholarship" on some other merit of measurement? If so, and outside of the Church, what is that merit of measurement?

On a scale of 1 to 10, what should one hold as a secular benchmark against LDS Schoalrship in a very specific topic as a litmus test?

Perhaps I can respond better once I know your definition of "LDS Scholarship".

I think your question is a great one though and hope I can answer it with qualified basis you provide!!

[volgadon]

Work written by LDS scholars on the various aspects of the BoM, the sort of thing you yourself asked about in the OP.

[mfbukowski]

Militancy in the pursuit of ignorance is something I just cannot fathom. I will never understand it.

[Daniel Peterson]

Let's not make this needlessly complex, DanGB.

I'll reformulate my question slightly: On the scale of 1 to 10 that I explained previously, how would you rate your familiarity with the Mormon-related materials published by the Maxwell Institute (aka FARMS)?

[DanGB]

Let's not make this needlessly complex, DanGB.

I'll reformulate my question slightly: On the scale of 1 to 10 that I explained previously, how would you rate your familiarity with the Mormon-related materials published by the Maxwell Institute (aka FARMS)?

Dan,

I have no idea what you mean by "faithfull" Latter-day scholarship. Since it is your definition, perhaps you could define or explain what that means!

Few members I've discussed it with even knew what Farms or the Maxewell Institute were. The only one that knew something about it told me it does not represent any official positions of Church doctrines or beliefs. Just thoughts and opinions of various authors who are allowed to publish there. But you would know better.

Accordingly I suppose my familiarity is probably the same as most members. I don't know where that would rank exactly but I suspect closer to 1 than to 10.

But why do you ask? I don't find a Farms Familiarity Ranking relevant to my original question here. But I am open to having you explain why.

[Mortal Man]

Few members I've discussed it with even knew what Farms or the Maxewell Institute were. The only one that knew something about it told me it does not represent any official positions of Church doctrines or beliefs. Just thoughts and opinions of various authors who are allowed to publish there.

All publications from the Maxwell Institute begin with this disclaimer:

The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This is designed to give ordinary members the impression that FARMS publications do not represent official church doctrine.

It should be understood, however, that certain FARMS authors exercise their "opinions" on church doctrine in precisely the same manner that a puppeteer exercises his "opinions" regarding his marionette's activities.

Before branding me a conspiricy theorist, consider the words of the METI chief editor:

Here are the facts: Bill Hamblin wrote to the First Presidency for clarification of the earlier letter. I didn't see his request for clarification, but I gather that he suggested some of the reasons why many of us think the question of the location of the final battles remains open, or, even, should probably be answered with "Mesoamerica."

So a mere "suggestion" from a friend of Dan Peterson motivates the First Presidency to reverse 160 years of church doctrine.

That's powerful stuff. I suggest we all strive to stay on Bill Hamblin's good side.

Before tiring of the endless idiocy of the "discussion," I repeatedly invited my Malevolent Stalker or anybody else to contact the Office of the First Presidency and suggest to them that two faculty members at Brigham Young University had consciously forged and published a statement purporting to come from the Office of the First Presidency. If the charge were found to be true, there can be no question that the ramifications for Professor Hamblin and myself, both ecclesiastical and professional, would be swift and severely damaging.

The insinuation continues to be repeated from time to time, but, so far as I'm aware, nobody has alerted the Office of the First Presidency to our supposed act of brazen fraud.

The forgery allegation is, of course, a red herring, manufactured to distract both members and critics from the far more serious issue.

P.S. I also have it on good authority that DCP was recently spotted returning from Australia in a black helicopter.