In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[cksalmon]

It's rather funny to see you react so strongly to my musings. Unless I'm mistaken, you've watched far, far rougher things -- accusations of brazenly unethical acts, for instance, including fraud -- be posted about me and my associates over at the Compound, where you're participating on the relevant thread, without protest. Yet, here, you're hypersensitive.

I've provided for you here on this board my view of the matter regarding your honesty.

I've provided for you here on this board my assessment of your musing linkage of BM and DS.

You'll note commonalities, I trust: both responses are to you directly; both responses are to material originating on this board.

If you want to move the discussion to MDB, feel free. Perhaps I'll respond to you there, as I see fit.

Since you don't post there, but do post here, I'll continue to confine my direct responses to you to this board.

That just makes sense to me.

cks

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm not sure that you really addressed my perception of a striking double standard on your part.

But that's fine. I don't care that much.

[cksalmon]

I'm not sure that you really addressed my perception of a striking double standard on your part.

But that's fine. I don't care that much.

Well, certainly, there are two standards.

I would note that when Nimrod called Dr. Hamblin out and demanded he respond, I essentially parroted your response to the inquiry:

Dr. Hamblin is in Israel, hasn't posted on MADB in months, and is likely not aware of anything being posted to either one of the fora.

cks

I won't bother posting a link (as MADB doesn't allow it), but you can find my comment at the top of page 8 of the relevant thread.

Since I have basically zero confidence that Hamblin is following the MDB thread (since he is out of country and otherwise engaged, I presume), I posted in his defense. And since I know that you are actively following the thread there (you've quoted from it more than once here), and are not in any way prevented from posting on MDB, I see no need to post in your defense.

And, don't have any intention of doing so.

Thus, the "double standard."

cks

[Daniel Peterson]

Whatever.

I do appreciate your pointing out that Professor Hamblin is abroad.

It turns out, I've just learned earlier today, that he and his wife have taken the opportunity, between academic terms at the Jerusalem Center, to travel. They're in Madrid, Spain, at the moment. And, like you, I'm quite confident that he's not following this little tempest. Even when he's not traveling, he rarely if ever checks in on this board (let alone on my Malevolent Stalker's board). In fact, truth be told, I don't think he looks at this board more once a quarter, if that.

[rockslider]

I assume that if one were to go back 10 years from 1993, the first Watson letter statement would have been a LONG standing doctrine officially held by every prophet up to that point.

I also assume that any statement coming out of the FP office post, say 1994 would have clearly been along the lines of the copied Ogden Fax.

Is all the hoopla over my second assumption being wrong, i.e. the brethren (at least the leading faction) actually still support my first assumption (and hence the Meldrum book)?

I assume that 16 years ago, the battle was simply over the shifting doctrine. Is that still the core of this current debate?

[Daniel Peterson]

So far as I can tell, there has never been a "doctrine" of Book of Mormon geography, except to the effect that there is no such doctrine.

Is all the hoopla over my second assumption being wrong, i.e. the brethren (at least the leading faction) actually still support my first assumption (and hence the Meldrum book)?

I'm not sure that I understand the question above.

So far as I'm aware, there is no "battle" going on among the Brethren regarding Book of Mormon geography. My Malevolent Stalker's notion of a "Packer faction" and an "Oaks faction" is, to the best of my knowledge, untrue. Consequently, the idea that the "Packer faction" favors Rod Meldrum's geographical ideas while the "Oaks faction" favors the FARMS or Maxwell Institute position is also false. (I actually have some reason to believe that President Packer, if he leans in any direction, leans toward the latter.)

[dblagent007]

Dan, you made these comments about the second Watson letter to your "stalker":

I simply don't care to reminisce with you about it. I think I saw it once, somewhat more than fifteen years ago. It wasn't a big deal. Nothing memorable about it. My memory of it is pretty hazy. And you've already decided that it's bound to make us all look bad "in some way," so anything I say can only add fuel to the flames of a fire that you yourself have already lit -- which would lead to an interminable conversation about . . . what, exactly? My vague memories (which you'll constantly demand that I specify and expand as you look for something self-contradictory or damning) and your predetermined negative conclusions?

Despite the admitted haziness of your memory about the incident, you now seem certain that the Carla Ogden fax is not the letter you saw, is that correct?

[Daniel Peterson]

Dan, you made these comments about the second Watson letter to your "stalker":Despite the admitted haziness of your memory about the incident, you now seem certain that the Carla Ogden fax is not the letter you saw, is that correct?

I've always remembered it as a letter, and as a letter from Michael Watson. Professor Hamblin also says that it was a letter from Michael Watson.

I've never heard of Carla Ogden, and would surely have remembered had it been a fax that looked like the one I've seen depicted.

"Hazy" doesn't mean "non-existent."

[Wiki Wonka]

My understanding was that the fax letter was put up quite quickly by Greg without him having the time to actually examine it (not surprising consider the demands for it), the differences were then noted by other FAIR members and they are working on the details. So if you still have a problem with the way it is presented in a week or so (though from the posting of WW here, it is likely it is already taken care of), then please bring them to my attention then and I will comment on what is on the site at that time. I am assuming you have no real problem with people who were acting on mistaken assumptions correcting their mistake once made aware of them....or do you believe that Greg and/or FAIR were trying to slip something by the reader (if so, I can attest to this being definitely not so based on my personal knowledge).

I'm very busy, and my schedule barely allows me to edit the wiki and look at a couple of message boards, so I cycle between those things over periods of several days. Editing the wiki has a much higher priority than reading (much less responding) on the message boards. My normal "response" is to modify the wiki without responding on a message board that I did it.

1) When Greg received the copy of the fax, he put it up on the wiki on a single page and modified text there.

2) I then came in and added the image to the parent page of the one Greg modified. During the course of the following day or so, it occurred to me that there was also a reference to the letter on the MormonThink page. I filed this in the back of my mind. When I finally had a chance to edit again, I added the image of the fax to the MormonThink page and modified the text there somewhat.

3) After I finally got a chance to get back to the message board discussions, I noted that someone had issue with the way the text was portraying the fax (I think it might have been a post from CKS), I then immediately went back to the wiki articles and modified the text in order to clearly identify the fax for what it was.

4) If I see further issues with the text or the way that the fax is presented, I'll modify the articles even more.

I have the sense that some folks involved in the discussion are not very familiar with what a wiki actually is. I've seen comments such as the ominous "copies of the wiki pages have been saved" or "the wiki will have to be modified." It should be noted with regard to the former comment that the wiki automatically saves every page revision. The latter comment is portentously stated, as if the task is some sort of effort that requires the approval of a committee. It doesn't. It can be performed in a few seconds, and it can be performed by any FAIR wiki editor without requiring anyone else's permission. These are not static HTML files that remain frozen on a web site - they may be updated on a daily basis. Therefore, when I finally get a chance to read through a message board thread, and I see a wiki related issue, I modify the wiki article on the spot. Greg often does the same. Such is the way of the wiki.

Edited: Fixed my bizarre grammar.

[SlackTime]

I'm very busy, and my schedule barely allows me to edit the wiki and look at a couple of message boards, so I cycle between those things over periods of several days. Editing the wiki has a much higher priority than reading (much less responding) on the message boards. My normal "response" is to modify the wiki without responding on a message board that I did it.

1) When Greg received the copy of the fax, he put it up on the wiki on a single page and modified text there.

2) I then came in and added the image to the parent page of the one Greg modified. During the course of the following day or so, it occurred to me that there was also a reference to the letter on the MormonThink page. I filed this in the back of my mind. When I finally had a chance to edit again, I added the image of the fax to the MormonThink page and modified the text there somewhat.

3) After I finally got a chance to get back to the message board discussions, I noted that someone had issue with the way the text was portraying the fax (I think it might have been a post from CKS), I then immediately went back to the wiki articles and modified the text in order to clearly identify the fax for what it was.

4) If I see further issues with the text or the way that the fax is presented, I'll modify the articles even more.

I have the sense that some folks involved in the discussion are not very familiar with what a wiki actually is. I've seen comments such as the ominous "copies of the wiki pages have been saved" or "the wiki will have to be modified." It should be noted with regard to the former comment that the wiki automatically saves every page revision. The latter comment is portentously stated, as if the task is some sort of effort that requires the approval of a committee. It doesn't. It can be performed in a few seconds, and it can be performed by any FAIR wiki editor without requiring anyone else's permission. These are not static HTML files that remain frozen on a web site - they may be updated on a daily basis. Therefore, when I finally get a chance to read through a message board thread, and I see a wiki related issue, I modify the wiki article on the spot. Greg often does the same. Such is the way of the wiki.

Edited: Fixed my bizarre grammar.

So Brother Wonka,

Pinning down a wiki editor is like nailing jello to the wall???

- SlackTime

[Daniel Peterson]

Curious.

For reasons evident to them but not even faintly visible to me, even some of the less fevered residents of the Compound have now pronounced the Carla Ogden fax and the discussions that have ensued devastating to the "Mopologists," and one of the most significant events in "Mopologetics" for the year 2009.

I genuinely find that both baffling and weird.

Oh well. Life is often a puzzle.

Personally (assuming that Mopologetics means apologetics), I would rank things like the publication of Royal Skousen's Yale Book of Mormon, the sending to press of Nibley's book on the hypocephalus, the appearance of Terryl Givens's When Souls Had Wings, and so forth, rather higher than anything on the Compound's proposed list.

[SlackTime]

Curious.

For reasons evident to them but not even faintly visible to me, even some of the less fevered residents of the Compound have now pronounced the Carla Ogden fax and the discussions that have ensued devastating to the "Mopologists," and one of the most significant events in "Mopologetics" for the year 2009.

I genuinely find that both baffling and weird.

Oh well. Life is often a puzzle.

Personally (assuming that Mopologetics means apologetics), I would rank things like the publication of Royal Skousen's Yale Book of Mormon, the sending to press of Nibley's book on the hypocephalus, the appearance of Terryl Givens's When Souls Had Wings, and so forth, rather higher than anything on the Compound's proposed list.

They have to take what victories they can get, even if it means that they are the only ones who interpret it as a victory for them.

- SlackTime

[Scott Lloyd]

Curious.

For reasons evident to them but not even faintly visible to me, even some of the less fevered residents of the Compound have now pronounced the Carla Ogden fax and the discussions that have ensued devastating to the "Mopologists," and one of the most significant events in "Mopologetics" for the year 2009.

Have I dropped off the list yet? Last I checked, I was at No. 10 for my alleged "meltdown" indicated by a couple of threads here in which I revealed myself as a "deeply bitter and hostile individual" bent on the destruction of my adversaries and whose "unraveling" constitutes a "major defeat" for "mopologists." I had no idea people paid that much attention to me.

Sorry, folks, I guess I had feet of clay. But for sheer importance, the infamous Carla Ogden fax clearly eclipses my downfall, so I can see where it would have higher billing.

[mfbukowski]

Curious.

For reasons evident to them but not even faintly visible to me, even some of the less fevered residents of the Compound have now pronounced the Carla Ogden fax and the discussions that have ensued devastating to the "Mopologists," and one of the most significant events in "Mopologetics" for the year 2009.

I genuinely find that both baffling and weird.

Oh well. Life is often a puzzle.

Personally (assuming that Mopologetics means apologetics), I would rank things like the publication of Royal Skousen's Yale Book of Mormon, the sending to press of Nibley's book on the hypocephalus, the appearance of Terryl Givens's When Souls Had Wings, and so forth, rather higher than anything on the Compound's proposed list.

If we understood they way they think, we would think like them.

Thank God, literally, we don't.

[Scott Lloyd]

If we understood they way they think, we would think like them.

Thank God, literally, we don't.

While I hesitate to engage in psychobabble or pop psychology (a favorite practice of anti-Mormons), I think in this case their mindset can be viewed in terms of confirmation bias. They want so desperately to declare a defeat for Mormonism and its defenders that they view events and circumstances with a skewed understanding, not realizing that their interpretation is clearly unsound.

The Sanskrit proverb I referenced earlier, "he who knows not and knows not that he knows not," has application here.

[dblagent007]

While I hesitate to engage in psychobabble or pop psychology (a favorite practice of anti-Mormons), I think in this case their mindset can be viewed in terms of confirmation bias. They want so desperately to declare a defeat for Mormonism and its defenders that they view events and circumstances with a skewed understanding, not realizing that their interpretation is clearly unsound.

Oh, the irony. Sometimes it is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh, the irony. Sometimes it is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

Indeed. As this, your latest post, so aptly illustrates. I'm assuming, of course, that you are a partaker of the fantasy that is swirling around -- like visions of sugarplums -- on the other board. If you remarking on the "irony" of them declaring victory where none exists, then I withdraw my comment.

Perhaps you should clarify.

[Daniel Peterson]

Another thing that I would rank fairly high on the list of "apologetic events" for 2009: The failure of George D. Smith's long-promised Nauvoo Polygamy to gain much traction -- a failure that is perhaps to be connected, to some degree or another, with Greg Smith's brilliant dissection of it.

Heck, the new announcement about a house being discovered Nazareth that dates from the time of Christ might make such a list, if I were preparing or proposing one.

[Scott Lloyd]

Another thing that I would rank fairly high on the list of "apologetic events" for 2009: The failure of George D. Smith's long-promised Nauvoo Polygamy to gain much traction -- a failure that is perhaps to be connected, to some degree or another, with Greg Smith's brilliant dissection of it.

Yes. Brent Metcalfe's testiness about this is betrayed on post #307 of this thread:

Hi Greg,

For someone who prides himself in schooling others in the "facts" of history (G* D* Smith comes to mind), you've made a spectacle of this FAIRly recent glimpse of the past.

If you'd like, I could elaborate.

My best,

</brent>

[wenglund]

Curious.

For reasons evident to them but not even faintly visible to me, even some of the less fevered residents of the Compound have now pronounced the Carla Ogden fax and the discussions that have ensued devastating to the "Mopologists," and one of the most significant events in "Mopologetics" for the year 2009.

I genuinely find that both baffling and weird.

Oh well. Life is often a puzzle.

Ah...the butterfly sneeze that is thought to be a hurricane, syndrome.

Some people will not be denied their drama.

But, imagine the extatic victory celebration were the "compound" to discover that Carla Ogden is actually the person who has for decades been secretly delivering your annual six-figure apologetic checks from the office of the First Presidecy. With the near limitless and uncommonly imaginative resources available to your Benevolent Stalker, I am surprised this fatal fact has yet to surface. Perhaps, though, it is being held in reserve as the final nail to be put in the LDS coffin for 2010.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

Ah...the butterfly sneeze that is thought to be a hurricane, syndrome.

Some people will not be denied their drama.

But, imagine the extatic victory celebration were the "compound" to discover that Carla Ogden is actually the person who has for decades been secretly delivering your annual six-figure apologetic checks from the office of the First Presidecy. With the near limitless and uncommonly imaginative resources available to your Benevolent Stalker, I am surprised this fatal fact has yet to surface. Perhaps, though, it is being held in reserve as the final nail to be put in the LDS coffin for 2010.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Maybe that's what's behind Metcalfe's ominous "more to come" threat.

He needs it to be something more damning than boilerplate language from Encyclopedia of Mormonism, since the impact of that was rather underwhelming.

Reminds me, somehow, of Joe McCarthy's secret list of communist sympathizers.

[Daniel Peterson]

For what it's worth, by the way, after a meeting today on several completely unrelated subjects (don't want to feed the conspiracy theorists who would otherwise leap to the conclusion that this was a crisis-management council convened to help us master our panic on this epochal issue), I ran into a colleague who knows something about the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

I mentioned the manufactured Watson-letter teapot-tempest to him, and he replied that, as he understood it, the text that shows up in both the Carla Ogden fax and the Michael Watson letter had already been circulating for several years, and that, if he was not mistaken, the text of the Encyclopedia's "Book of Mormon Geography" article postdates that First Presidency text, and its language was deliberately worked into the Encyclopedia article at the suggestion of Elder Oaks and/or Elder Maxwell.

So the Encyclopedia of Mormonism text would, in that case, be dependent upon the text that appears in the Ogden and Watson communications -- or, more precisely, on some Church-generated document that was created prior to both of them, and from which both of them drew -- and not the other way around.

I have no idea whether this is true or not, but it makes complete sense to me.

I still don't actually see why it matters much, though. Unless somebody is willing to buy the notion that Professor Hamblin and/or somebody else or some other group associated with FARMS deliberately falsified the nature or authorship of the communication that Professor Hamblin's article cites -- my Malevolent Stalker and his disciples seem to have quietly abandoned their earlier insinuation that we forged that communication altogether, ex nihilo -- there really doesn't seem to me to be much of an issue here, let alone a catastrophe that could lead to the excommunication of some or all of us and the utter downfall of the Maxwell Institute.

[dblagent007]

Indeed. As this, your latest post, so aptly illustrates. I'm assuming, of course, that you are a partaker of the fantasy that is swirling around -- like visions of sugarplums -- on the other board. If you remarking on the "irony" of them declaring victory where none exists, then I withdraw my comment.

Perhaps you should clarify.

I find it highly ironic that you accuse them of confirmation bias when it is so deeply embedded in Mormon apologetics. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

[DanGB]

If I may be enlightened, what/where is this "compound" that is being refered to on this thread? Who is "Scratch" and what is he?

[Daniel Peterson]

I find it highly ironic that you accuse them of confirmation bias when it is so deeply embedded in Mormon apologetics. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

You're welcome to attempt to make that charge stick in a published article that will be subject to comment from scholars.

I deny your claim, and say, in contrast, that, while confirmation bias is a problem for all human beings, it constitutes no greater problem for serious Mormon apologetic scholarship than for other areas of scholarship.

Prove your case. And not merely with anecdotal meanderings on a message board. Write it up in a systematic way and publish it somewhere where it will attract the attention of scholars.