In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[Glenn101]

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.

Was this tongue-in-cheek?

There is/must be a conspiracy here. The section in my octrine and Covenants where the doctrine concerning the location of the Nephite/Lamanite final battles and homelands has mysteriously disappeared. What is more, I cannot even remeber which section it was. LDS mind control again?

Glenn

[Mortal Man]

Was this tongue-in-cheek?

I can't tell.

There is/must be a conspiracy here. The section in my octrine and Covenants where the doctrine concerning the location of the Nephite/Lamanite final battles and homelands has mysteriously disappeared. What is more, I cannot even remeber which section it was. LDS mind control again?

You have Fundamental Apologetic Regressive Memory Syndrome. It's a progressive disease, which causes loss of long-term memory whenever you hear some new thing.

[Daniel Peterson]

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!

This strikes me as a silly game, and I'm not going to play it.

I've asked a simple question: 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)?

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.

Thank you. Your answer is pretty much what I expected from you.

[DanGB]

This strikes me as a silly game, and I'm not going to play it.

I've asked a simple question: 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)?

I did not start the game. You did via invitation. And, unlike you, I answered your question!

Btw, am I the first to participate in your Farms awareness screening process??

Wish I knew why it is relevant!

Thank you. Your answer is pretty much what I expected from you.

I ask my wife; "if you already have the answer, why ask the question"? She does it to take a jab as well!

Seriously though, sorry that I am not Farms "Aware" enough for you.

[Daniel Peterson]

I did not start the game. You did via invitation.

I asked a simple, straightforward question. That's all. Because I wanted to know. That's why.

Enjoy yourself.

[pcarthew]

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.

Words, words, words and more boring words. No serious interest in trying to understand LDS scholarly studies. I perceive you are only interested in trying to show us how intelligent you are. Understanding anything comes from a sincere desire to learn. It is hard to learn when you think you already have the answers or you ask a loaded question, so you can then proceed as you have here above. When you have been asked a sincere question, your arrogant agenda becomes transparent by your moronic banter! DCP's clarifying questions are met with your contempt, only because you know nothing of Mormon scholarship. Any fair minded balanced person, even with complete opposition to the church would have to acknowledge that LDS scholarship is thorough and for the most part accurate.

You see, your question shows the highest levels of bigoted arrogance "In need of convincing LDS scholarship". Scholarly studies are just what they purport to be by definition, it is then up to the individual to make that judgment for themselves whether or not they are convinced by the scholarly work or not. You are obviously not capable of reading then analyzing, comparing and forming an opinion of Mormon scholarship because you obviously believe that Mormon scholars are not that good...hence you need of convincing. You appear to come to this board with you cleverly crafted responses which smack of little or no understanding of our great LDS scholars.

You like so many others would do well to sincerely study some of the great works of the LDS scholars and even better the LDS prophets. Once you have done this in all sincerety you will find you will have answered your own question. You will then find that indeed there are mountains of credibility in the circles of LDS scholarship.

So if you want to be taken seriously, go away do a little study, come back with something other than a boring hollow opinion. After this, you then, may not think to agree with the LDS scholars or feel their work is that of the great scholars of the world, but what you will find that LDS scholarship is of the very highest standard.

[Anijen]

I really have to laugh at those who dismiss anything from FARMS or FAIR and then learn they do not know much about those sites. Try reading some of the papers first I would say five at the very least, there not that long, I am sure many invested more time with LoTR, Harry Potter or even New Moon. Perhaps you might enjoy reading them perhaps your testimonies might be strengthened perhaps you will be following council like the following from the D&C;

D&C 88:78

78 Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

[DanGB]

Anijen,

First, I get it.

[Daniel Peterson]

Do you somehow think that this board is "located" in Utah, DanGB? That it's not "located" in Texas (or wherever you better people live)?

How did you get that idea? And how does it work, exactly?

my familiarity with Farms has no relevance on the my original question here.

Nor have I sought to use your unfamiliarity with FARMS (or, better, with BYU's Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship) as evidence in any discussion with you. I was just, and said I was just, curious.

.

[ToGo]

Dan Peterson,

I trust your curiosity of DanGB's level of knowledge/familiarity of NAMIRS is now satisifed (but then, maybe not).

Turning back now to the question of DanGB's original post, can you point DanGB to any non-LDS scholars that have been convinced by the works of LDS scholars "in the areas of geography, history. athropology or archaeogy in supporting the existance of the history in the Book Of Mormon"?

For me, I would not expect that any anti-LDS scholars to be persuaded, but I would like to know if any scholars coming at the question without preconceived notions (i.e., without an anti-LDS bias or a testimony) have been convinced by the NAMIRS (or other LDS) scholarship on this topic.

[volgadon]

ToGo please read through the tread, this has been done.

[volgadon]

I completely forgot that the late Rafael Patai of the hebrew University included a bit on Nephi in his book on ancient Hebrew seafarers.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dan Peterson,

I trust your curiosity of DanGB's level of knowledge/familiarity of NAMIRS is now satisifed (but then, maybe not).

It's been entirely satisfied. I'm quite content.

Turning back now to the question of DanGB's original post, can you point DanGB to any non-LDS scholars that have been convinced by the works of LDS scholars "in the areas of geography, history. athropology or archaeogy in supporting the existance of the history in the Book Of Mormon"?

For me, I would not expect that any anti-LDS scholars to be persuaded, but I would like to know if any scholars coming at the question without preconceived notions (i.e., without an anti-LDS bias or a testimony) have been convinced by the NAMIRS (or other LDS) scholarship on this topic.

I believe that this burning question has been addressed at some length here on this thread.

[pcarthew]

Dan Peterson,

I trust your curiosity of DanGB's level of knowledge/familiarity of NAMIRS is now satisifed (but then, maybe not).

Turning back now to the question of DanGB's original post, can you point DanGB to any non-LDS scholars that have been convinced by the works of LDS scholars "in the areas of geography, history. athropology or archaeogy in supporting the existance of the history in the Book Of Mormon"?

For me, I would not expect that any anti-LDS scholars to be persuaded, but I would like to know if any scholars coming at the question without preconceived notions (i.e., without an anti-LDS bias or a testimony) have been convinced by the NAMIRS (or other LDS) scholarship on this topic.

Good Heavens! Another ferret...eerr are you DanGb's cousin!

[SlackTime]

It's been entirely satisfied. I'm quite content.

I believe that this burning question has been addressed at some length here on this thread.

If it happened (non-LDS scholars being convinced of the Book of Mormon's truth claims), and I rather think it has, then the foolish expert almost certainly decided to join the Church and thus invalidated their opinion. Oh well!

The Church is in the business of bringing people to Christ and I have yet to see the scripture where God suggests that the best way of doing this is by scholarly proof and publishing in professional journals. Not that there is anything wrong with doing those things! They just aren't the process outlined for conversion, which is more along the lines of: Declaring the Word by the Spirit. Hearing the Gospel with the Spirit. And the Revelation of God through the Spirit. Any other way seems to be "not of God". (D&C 50: 17-23)

- SlackTime

[DanGB]

For me, I would not expect that any anti-LDS scholars to be persuaded, but I would like to know if any scholars coming at the question without preconceived notions (i.e., without an anti-LDS bias or a testimony) have been convinced by the NAMIRS (or other LDS) scholarship on this topic.

This queston has been addresssed at length here on this thread and, unfortunately, the answer is no. But we have the future for hope.

If I am wrong, I trust someone will provide those who have been convinced in the secular academic community on specific BOM history scholarship (w references of course!).

[Daniel Peterson]

The task of those who do scholarship on the Book of Mormon in particular and on Mormonism in general is to use sound logic based on an adequate assessment of the relevant evidence.

Whether anybody is convinced, or even pays attention, is beyond their control. But their logic will still be sound or unsound, and their use of evidence satisfactory or not, even if nobody ever reads a word they write. The contents of Gregor Mendel's revolutionary and foundational article on genetics were still true during the decades when nobody paid them any attention.

[Kevin Christensen]

This queston has been addresssed at length here on this thread and, unfortunately, the answer is no. But we have the future for hope.

If I am wrong, I trust someone will provide those who have been convinced in the secular academic community on specific BOM history scholarship (w references of course!).

To quote myself from two wweeks ago:

Earlier on, I mentioned my personal experience with Biblical scholar Margaret Barker, but apparently, that is not what you have in mind. She did speak on the Book of Mormon at the Joseph Smith Conference at the Library of Congress in 2005.

Mark Wright, a Phd. student in Mesoamerican studies, (aka Hashbaz on this list) on April 29th 2008 reported on this list that "We also know that the current site director of Teotihuacan, Alejandro Sarabia, and his wife, Dr. Kim Goldsmith, are both converts to the Church (long after they became archaeologists and after decades of work at Teotihuacan), and they both believe that Teotihuacan fits the description of great cities of cement in the land northward as described in the Book of Mormon. If you'd care to visit Teotihuacan and have a chat with them, I'd be happy to arrange it."

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Daniel Peterson]

To quote myself from two wweeks ago:

Earlier on, I mentioned my personal experience with Biblical scholar Margaret Barker, but apparently, that is not what you have in mind. She did speak on the Book of Mormon at the Joseph Smith Conference at the Library of Congress in 2005.

Mark Wright, a Phd. student in Mesoamerican studies, (aka Hashbaz on this list) on April 29th 2008 reported on this list that "We also know that the current site director of Teotihuacan, Alejandro Sarabia, and his wife, Dr. Kim Goldsmith, are both converts to the Church (long after they became archaeologists and after decades of work at Teotihuacan), and they both believe that Teotihuacan fits the description of great cities of cement in the land northward as described in the Book of Mormon. If you'd care to visit Teotihuacan and have a chat with them, I'd be happy to arrange it."

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Just like DanGB says, Kevin, there are no such cases.

[Greg Smith]

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?

I just received it in the mail today (16 December 2009).

Links to it are posted here, at a couple of resolutions: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements/First_Presidency_Letter

I have redacted the First Presidency Fax number and one of the secretarial numbers (they don't need the aggravation). They are otherwise unedited.

Note that Hamblin had nothing to do with the letter at all. The discussion with F. Michael Watson was with Brent Hall, who circulated copies in an "FYI" sort of way. Matt Roper, who supplied me with the copy, said that to his knowledge there were about a half a dozen copies made to Hamblin, Sorenson, and a few others.

Let the spin doctoring begin. :-)

Greg

[cksalmon]

On the second Watson letter:

...

My contact is snail-mailing me the copy, and I have permission to post it to the FAIR wiki when it arrives. It was mailed today; it will probably be up by early next week depending on the vagaries of the US and Canadian postal services.

...

But, doubters can soon see the text for themselves, it seems.

Greg,

Have you been left swinging in the wind by higher-ups?

We are now at day 14. Two weeks. Has the snail-mail bundle even now failed to arrive? Or, is there some other explanation that doesn't impugn the mail service?

I once shipped an expensive package via priority mail USPS (2-3 days estimated delivery time) that finally showed up at its destination at about week 1.5. I was suitably relieved. So, I don't question that perhaps your snail-mail has been mislaid, or lost, in transit, but I was wondering if you might confirm that such is the case. Have you not received the package yet?

I wouldn't call myself a doubter as to the authenticity of the 2nd Watson Letter, but surely you are much more concerned about the status of this delivery than I am, as it was shipped to you 14 days ago.

Do you know the status?

cks

EDIT: My post directly above preceded my reading of Greg's most recent post. Sweet!

EDIT 2: Well, that's weird. The sender is Carla Ogden, not Watson. Also weird is that we already know that Hamblin had everything to do with the letter, as DCP has told us that the second Watson Letter was in direct response to a letter from Hamblin.

Here's what DCP wrote:

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." I did, however, see Brother Watson's response, on First Presidency letterhead, and I am the editor of the FARMS Review, in which the entire text of that response (apart from the greeting and the signature) was published. My two associate editors of the FARMS Review, George Mitton and Prof. Louis Midgley, also saw it, as did the Review's production editor, Dr. Shirley Ricks, and the Maxwell Institute's director of publications, Alison V. P. Coutts, and at least one source checker.

These, he tells us, are the facts.

What you've provided is, as you suggest, not a response to Hamblin at all--he had nothing to do with it. Also, contra Peterson, the response is not at all a response from Watson, but from Carla Ogden.

Since DCP has seen Watson's response, not Carla Ogden's, it appears that this is not, after all, the infamous Second Watson Letter, after all.

Unless there are some layers involved here that necessitate that Watson's response to Hamblin is neither a response by Watson directly, nor a response to Hamblin--since "Hamblin had nothing to do with the letter at all."

?

cks

EDIT 3: Perhaps DCP knew that "Carla Ogden" was speaking for "Watson" in this instance, though Watson's name doesn't appear on this fax at all? But, then, would you maintain that Hamblin had nothing to do with this clarification, i.e., that DCP was incorrect? That, contra DCP's insistence that this was a response to a query by Hamblin, the correspondence was actually just between Watson/Ogden and Brent Hall? And that Hamblin was merely CC'ed?

?

EDIT 4:

Greg wrote:

It is also made clear by an annotation on the fax that the First Presidency wished to clarify the impression left by Bro. (now Elder) Watson's first letter.

I see no annotations on the fax. You must mean the cover letter from Brent Hall? Now, is Brent Hall a member of the First Presidency? Or a member of Q12? Or a Seventy? Could be. I dunno.

EDIT 5:

DCP wrote:

I did, however, see Brother Watson's response, on First Presidency letterhead, and I am the editor of the FARMS Review, in which the entire text of that response (apart from the greeting and the signature) was published.

But, of course, in the image that Greg has provided there is without any doubt neither any greeting nor signature! It's certainly odd that DCP would state of a response by Watson that only "the greeting and the signature" was excised from publication when nary a greeting nor signature is actually present in the provided scanned fax. So, again, DCP, as the editor of the FARMS Review (as he announces), states that FARMS merely left out "the greeting and the signature" in its publication. But, there is neither in the provided document. Thus, this must not be the famous Second Watson Letter with which DCP is familiar.

I think DCP and I can agree upon at least that much. Whereas his Second Watson Letter is a response from Watson to Hamblin, with a greeting and a signature, the document Greg has provided is a response from Ogden to Hall with neither a greeting nor a signature.

This is the image that, if it were the Second Watson Letter, would contain, per DCP both a greeting and a signature.

But, it doesn't. So, this really can't be the response DCP has referred to, can it? A response to Hamblin with a greeting and signature that is neither to Hamblin nor contains a greeting or signature?

And, so, the Second Watson Letter, apparently, remains ever elusive, I suppose.

cks

[DanGB]

I just received it in the mail today (16 December 2009).

Links to it are posted here, at a couple of resolutions: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements/First_Presidency_Letter

I have redacted the First Presidency Fax number and one of the secretarial numbers (they don't need the aggravation). They are otherwise unedited.

Note that Hamblin had nothing to do with the letter at all. The discussion with F. Michael Watson was with Brent Hall, who circulated copies in an "FYI" sort of way. Matt Roper, who supplied me with the copy, said that to his knowledge there were about a half a dozen copies made to Hamblin, Sorenson, and a few others.

Let the spin doctoring begin. :-)

Greg

Greg,

thanks for the update.

I seriously doubt this fax is the support for the Hamblin article referenced earlier in this thread. Both Hamblin's footnote and Dan Petersons account reflect something much different and direct from a Michael Watson. Perhaps your sources are mstaken?

Anyway, I think Daniel Peterson is probably the best to confirm, if in fact, this is the document that was the reliance on the Hamblin article he previously sighted. I'm guessing it is not. Just doesn't seem to have anywhere near the authority that has been previously acclaimed.

[volgadon]

Dan, look at post #262.

ARE YOU DELIBERATELY IGNORING ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS?

[Daniel Peterson]

EDIT 2: Well, that's weird. The sender is Carla Ogden, not Watson. Also weird is that we already know that Hamblin had everything to do with the letter, as DCP has told us that the second Watson Letter was in direct response to a letter from Hamblin.

That was my understanding. But perhaps I was wrong. I've never heard of Carla Ogden, to the best of my recollection.

Since DCP has seen Watson's response, not Carla Ogden's, it appears that this is not, after all, the infamous Second Watson Letter, after all.

There's nothing "infamous" about the letter. This is silly, overdone melodrama of the Snidely Whiplash variety.

The text of the fax, however, seems to be identical to the letter that I saw and that is quoted in full in the FARMS Review.

I've never understood the absurd dramatics with which a few critics desperately want to surround this non-issue. Unless they seriously want to argue that Bill, or Bill and I, or Bill and I and others at the Maxwell Institute brazenly forged the Watson letter -- a conclusion that seems a little problematic, now that the very same text has appeared in another apparently official document -- there doesn't seem to be much of any significance in this wearisome saga.

Addendum:

ROTFL!

Over on his message board, my Malevolent Stalker is now suggesting that Greg Smith and/or Matt Roper and/or Brent Hall may have forged this document or some document or done something horrible or (good grief, I couldn't bear to do more than skim the idiocy) and speculating that one or more of them may be in imminent danger of excommunication. I'd say that you can't make this stuff up. But, clearly, he can.

.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi folks,

The thick plottens.

I've never understood the absurd dramatics with which a few critics desperately want to surround this non-issue. Unless they seriously want to argue that Bill, or Bill and I, or Bill and I and others at the Maxwell Institute brazenly forged the Watson letter -- a conclusion that seems a little problematic, now that the very same text has appeared in another apparently official document -- there doesn't seem to be much of any significance in this wearisome saga.

So, the Carla Ogden fax that Greg posted isn't the document; rather, it's "another apparently official document" that fortuitously replicates the original "Watson letter" sent to Bill and which is now lost!?

*good grief!*

This is what we've been waiting for?

ROTFL!

After all the years of convoluted claims about this, um, "letter"