In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Dan,

I see no contradiction at all.

If you think you see a contradiction, I implore you to explain to me where you see it.

I'm very content to let our readers decide for themselves.

My best,

</brent>

Edit: Added emphasis for dramatic effect.

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[mfbukowski]

See here.

cks

No, I have followed the arguments and issues, but I cannot figure out why they are allegedly important at all.

The question is about credibility of mopologists but has no relation to doctrine whatsoever.

No one involved - Watson or Ogden- have any "standing" to state anything definitive about doctrine anyway, so there is no issue of importance there.

The only issue is the possible accusation that Dr. Peterson has somehow done something wrong, which is absurd.

As far as I can tell no one has directly accused him of anything. All it is is innuendo, smoke and mirrors.

It really and truly is much ado about absolutely nothing. Unless I am wrong, and am not seeing it. So what is why I challenged the other side to express precisely why any of this has any importance whatsoever, and all we have heard from is ck, referring to a less than stellar earlier post.

I am still seeing nothing whatsoever.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Dan,

Really?

In what possible way would this "make[] complete sense" to you given your report of Mike Watson's contrition on ZLMB in 2001:

In what way does your current ad hoc hypothesis comport with your 2001 portrayal of Mike Watson's alleged mea culpa as the direct result of FARMS' intervention?

I've never seen Elder F. Michael Watson, formerly secretary to the First Presidency and now a member of the Seventy, being referred to by the nickname "Mike." It's rather jarring to me. It's possible, I suppose that the two of you know each other on an informal basis, perhaps getting together after hours to shoot pool or something, but I doubt it.

[dblagent007]

Ah. I see. You're a Compound kind of guy who will not grant that those who disagree with him operate in good faith.

My apologies. I hadn't understood that before.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. I have a hard time believing apologists are fiendish knaves, just like I don't favor explanations of JS that paint him as complete fraud. I favor interpretations that show JS believed he was doing God's will.

The facts presented here, however, make me wonder about apologists, especially the wild speculation about some heretofore unknown super-source document in the exclusive possession and control of the FP from which the EoM and the Ogden fax (Watson letter) allegedly came from. Hard to believe that one. If you just would have left that out . . .

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm very content to let our readers decide for themselves.

Well, this reader, for one, sees naught but still more vacuity. Maybe you need to connect the dots.

Was this the dreaded and ominous "more to come"?

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, I wouldn't go that far. I have a hard time believing apologists are fiendish knaves, just like I don't favor explanations of JS that paint him as complete fraud. I favor interpretations that show JS believed he was doing God's will.

The facts presented here, however, make me wonder about apologists, especially the wild speculation about some heretofore unknown super-source document in the exclusive possession and control of the FP from which the EoM and the Ogden fax (Watson letter) allegedly came from. Hard to believe that one. If you just would have left that out . . .

Why do you find it hard to believe? And why do you find it so easy to believe that the publishers of the FARMS Journal of Book of Mormon Studies would manufacture a quote from a high-ranking Church official, knowing that such a foolhardy and dishonest stunt would almost certainly get them into hot water?

Your judgment seems cockeyed, just as surely as it did the other day when you objected to a children's lesson in Primary that didn't intimate that the early settlers of Utah -- not the James Buchanan administration -- were to blame for the Utah War.

[mfbukowski]

I'm very content to let our readers decide for themselves.

And there you have it.

Nothing but revealing themselves for the jackals they are. Smoke, mirrors and innuendo, the usual stuff

[Scott Lloyd]

And there you have it.

Nothing but revealing themselves for the jackals they are. Smoke, mirrors and innuendo, the usual stuff

A rather workable definition of the term sophistry, when you think about it.

[mfbukowski]

A rather workable definition of the term sophistry, when you think about it.

Precisely!

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Scott,

I've never seen Elder F. Michael Watson, formerly secretary to the First Presidency and now a member of the Seventy, being referred to by the nickname "Mike." It's rather jarring to me. It's possible, I suppose that the two of you know each other on an informal basis, perhaps getting together after hours to shoot pool or something, but I doubt it.

I don't think Mike and I have ever played pool, and I'm almost certain that we've never slammed down a few root beers (with or without the root). But he's been a respected family friend for decades who I've always known as Mike. I have nothing but the highest regard for him.

Evidently in your grand narrative I'm a sophist, at least according to one of your latest posts. By definition, then, I have nothing of substance to contribute, so please understand if I ignore your interminably trite posts in the future.

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[jmordecai]

Just a few posts apart

[dblagent007]

Scott . . . please understand if I ignore your interminably trite posts in the future.

Amen.

[Uncle Dale]

Amen.

Gee -- I wouldn't want to see such an interesting thread get shut down,

due to backbiting among the back-benchers.

Hopefully my good friend, Bro. Lloyd will remain gentleman enough to

hold himself aloof from pettiness, and direct our attention back to

the issues at hand.

Uncle Dale

.

[mfbukowski]

Just a few posts apart

[volgadon]

Just a few posts apart

[Daniel Peterson]

And what, exactly, are those issues, Dale?

Are there any that matter at all?

Please advise.

The facts presented here, however, make me wonder about apologists, especially the wild speculation about some heretofore unknown super-source document in the exclusive possession and control of the FP from which the EoM and the Ogden fax (Watson letter) allegedly came from. Hard to believe that one. If you just would have left that out . . .

You yourself are the one who's dolled my simple and entirely reasonable suggestion up as a "wild speculation" (I believe you've used that phrase at least three times) "about some heretofore unknown super-source document in the exclusive possession and control of the FP."

I have, of course, said absolutely nothing about any document being "in the exclusive possession and control of the FP," nor have I used hyperventilating language like "super-source."

I've simply suggested that, since the Watson letter from the Office of the First Presidency and the Ogden fax from the Office of the First Presidency and the article in the Enyclopedia of Mormonism, for which Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Neal A. Maxwell of the Council of the Twelve served as official advisors, all use similar if not identical language, it's entirely possible, even likely, that all three documents draw upon a common source. And it seems likely to me that somebody at Church headquarters, feeling that this issue needed to be carefully addressed and knowing that it would be treated in the quasi-official Encyclopedia of Mormonism and knowing that questions about the subject came from time to time to the Office of the First Presidency, thought it would be wise to formulate a standard-issue position statement on the topic -- which, in fact, is reflected in the language of the Ogden fax and the Watson letter and the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

Nothing much rests upon whether this is precisely true or not. But it seems completely reasonable, it's consistent with the known facts, it requires no ridiculous conspiracy theories, it assumes no high crimes on the part of anybody associated with FARMS (sorry about that!), and it's the kind of thing that many organizations routinely do. I really can't understand why you're so hysterical about the suggestion.

Anyway, I've explained myself several times now, and you've frothed about my supposedly "wild speculation" several times now, and I don't think that there's much point in repeating the dance.

please understand if I ignore your interminably trite posts in the future.

Spoken from the lofty heights of Olympus on which, for many years now, Brent has fancied himself to reside.

(

[mfbukowski]

.... back to

the issues at hand.

I would be interested in your views on what those issues are, since I am having trouble, as a "back bencher" seeing what they are.

[Daniel Peterson]

There is, so far as I can see, no substantive issue of any importance here.

I simply won't sit idly by while I'm publicly accused of deliberate deception and fraud. (It's an odd quirk of mine.)

Just a few posts apart

[dblagent007]

And what, exactly, are those issues, Dale?

Are there any that matter at all?

Please advise.

You yourself are the one who's dolled my simple and entirely reasonable suggestion up as a "wild speculation" (I believe you've used that phrase at least three times) "about some heretofore unknown super-source document in the exclusive possession and control of the FP."

I have, of course, said absolutely nothing about any document being "in the exclusive possession and control of the FP," nor have I used hyperventilating language like "super-source."

I've simply suggested that, since the Watson letter from the Office of the First Presidency and the Ogden fax from the Office of the First Presidency and the article in the Enyclopedia of Mormonism, for which Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Neal A. Maxwell of the Council of the Twelve served as official advisors, all use similar if not identical language, it's entirely possible, even likely, that all three documents draw upon a common source. And it seems likely to me that somebody at Church headquarters, feeling that this issue needed to be carefully addressed and knowing that it would be treated in the quasi-official Encyclopedia of Mormonism and knowing that questions about the subject came from time to time to the Office of the First Presidency, thought it would be wise to formulate a standard-issue position statement on the topic -- which, in fact, is reflected in the language of the Ogden fax and the Watson letter and the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

Nothing much rests upon whether this is precisely true or not. But it seems completely reasonable, it's consistent with the known facts, it requires no ridiculous conspiracy theories, it assumes no high crimes on the part of anybody associated with FARMS (sorry about that!), and it's the kind of thing that many organizations routinely do. I really can't understand why you're so hysterical about the suggestion.

Anyway, I've explained myself several times now, and you've frothed about my supposedly "wild speculation" several times now, and I don't think that there's much point in repeating the dance.

The problem is that your FP uber-source document theory is the same kind of explanation that we get for so many issues. BoA - there was an original document from which the existing manuscripts were copied. Why? Because it has to be for JS's story to make any sense. The alternative is just unthinkable, but, unfortunately, consistent with the vast, vast majority of the evidence. BoM anachronisms - God either inspired JS to use the KJV Isaiah as his source or directly revealed it to him. Why? Because it is the only way for JS's story to make sense. Again, the alternative is unthinkable, albeit supported by most of the evidence. Kinderhook plates - William Clayton's journal can't be trusted. Why? Because it has to be that way or JS doesn't look good. Once more the alternative is unthinkable, although supported by the facts. It just never ends (did I mention the lies and deceit associated with polygamy? - I'll leave that one out).

Frankly, I don't think this whole Watson thing is really a big deal in comparison to the weightier issues. I just find it unfortunate that even in such a minor situation as this you gravitate to barely plausible arguments instead of looking at the most probable conclusion. Maybe its just second nature at this point.

[Uncle Dale]

And what, exactly, are those issues, Dale?

Are there any that matter at all?

Please advise.

How we choose to treat one another in this forum matters to me, far more than whether

or not there was some boilerplate policy statement copied into various sources at

various times,

I am perhaps naive enough to believe that most of the contributors here at least

make an honest attempt at conveying their intentions, memories, methods, etc.

It just seems logical that we come out of this stuff better by extending more

latitude to one another's foibles, than we do by constantly trying to search

out the possible worst in one another.

I am perfectly content to assume that there have long been decent, thoughtful

people in positions of high responsibility who feel that the location of Hill

Cumorah is somewhere near the bottom of their list of important items to

address and deal with -- and that we do them and ourselves a disservice when

we attempt to project our own priorities upon folks "above our pay grade."

If some leaders feel that a certain hill is located in one place or another,

that is their business. And if they do not feel it important to address that

issue, for public consumption, that is also their business.

I hope you maintain your own integrity and inform all of any new recollections

or reconsiderations that come to mind. But that is not the issue at hand.

The issue is how we choose to work with one another to elicit and articulate

the best, most reliable communications reasonably possible, under the

circumstances.

There truly are times when the media is the message.

Uncle Dale

.

[Uncle Dale]

I would be interested in your views on what those issues are, since I am having trouble, as a "back bencher" seeing what they are.

See above.

UD

[Daniel Peterson]

Dale:

I'm all for assuming, until there is good reason to believe otherwise, that people are making a serious effort to get things right. I think such civility and mutual respect is essential to serious conversation.

But I reserve the right to object when others assume, baselessly, that I'm a liar and corrupt, and when they fail to meet even minimal standards of civility and respect.

The problem is that your FP uber-source document theory is the same kind of explanation that we get for so many issues. BoA - there was an original document from which the existing manuscripts were copied. Why? Because it has to be for JS's story to make any sense.

But my suggestion, though extremely plausible and even likely to be true, doesn't have to be true in order for any of the rest of this to make sense. It's just a reasonable scenario.

Why are you dragging your issues with the Church into this?

Frankly, I don't think this whole Watson thing is really a big deal in comparison to the weightier issues. I just find it unfortunate that even in such a minor situation as this you gravitate to barely plausible arguments instead of looking at the most probable conclusion. Maybe its just second nature at this point.

Please identify "the most probable conclusion" for me. What is it?

And please identify anything in my notion of a decision by Church leaders on how to deal with a certain recurrent issue that is "barely plausible." Merely repeating, over and over and over again, that you don't believe it and that it upsets you doesn't constitute an argument. How about some evidence and analysis?

[Mortal Man]

It's a good thing he has a cheering section here.

I have no horse in this race. I just call 'em like I see 'em.

I must?

Well no, but if you really are determined to demonstrate your stagecrafting skills at the expense of your credibility, then at least give us something interesting to chew on. Maybe say that Prof. Ludlow once told you of a time when Elder Oaks mentioned to him that when the pages of the FPDBMG were all laid out on the floor, they extended through two rooms of the Monson house.

Nothing whatsoever hinges on whether or not some folks in the leadership of the Church decided to agree on a brief standard-issue response before the publication of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, the sending of the Ogden fax, and the mailing of the Watson letter.

And nothing whatsoever hinges on whether or not you continue clinging to this new theory of yours.

Now that we're all agreed that none of this matters one whit:

1) Who exactly are "some folks"?

2) Was Michael Watson speaking for the First Presidency when he issued his "Oops" statement?

3) Why didn't you mention your conversations with Michael Watson before Brent brought them up?

3) If the response was "standard-issue" then where are all the other faxes, letters, articles, talks and Primary lessons on this Cumorah issue?

[Uncle Dale]

Dale:

I'm all for assuming, until there is good reason to believe otherwise, that people are making a serious effort to get things right. I think such civility and mutual respect is essential to serious conversation.

But I reserve the right to object when others assume, baselessly, that I'm a liar and corrupt, and when they fail to meet even minimal standards of civility and respect.

...

To the extent that you represent institutions or colleagues, not able to easily

speak for themselves, of course you should reserve the right to object -- and

to set the record straight.

But there are times that a minimalist approach and introspection are the best

policy. Read this over after you take some time out to open your Christmas

gifts (and watch others open theirs), and come back then to offer any truly

important insights or arguments that still seem important.

In the meanwhile, take care not to provide your detractors with precisely

the material they would be happy to have in any late-night, haphazard

responses.

I'm not often on your side, Doc.

But this is that rare exception.

UD

[mfbukowski]

Now that we're all agreed that none of this matters one whit:

That says it all.