In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[jmordecai]

More frustration

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm just trying to make heads or tails out of what we are (or are not) working with here.

Good luck with that, mate, since what you need is clarification from one or more of the critics who somehow find all of this a big deal. I'm just as confused over its significance as you are.

[beastie]

I

[Wiki Wonka]

Good luck with that, mate, since what you need is clarification from one or more of the critics who somehow find all of this a big deal. I'm just as confused over its significance as you are.

I will attempt a summary for those who continue to express confusion regarding "what is going on here."

In the "before time":

1. F. Michael Watson's sends out a signed letter dated October 16, 1990 stating that "the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon."

2. William J. Hamblin notes in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (1993): "Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency of the Church, has recently clarified the Church's position on Book of Mormon geography," after which he quotes the text of the letter. This is cited as "Correspondence from Michael Watson, Office of the First Presidency, 23 April 1993."

3. The actual letter, commonly referred to as the "2nd Watson Letter" has not been located.

4. Critics have used the fact that the letter hasn't been located to accuse Bill Hamblin, and Daniel C. Peterson, of making the second letter up. This has gone on for about 15 years.

In the "after time":

1. F. Michael Watson's sends out a signed letter dated October 16, 1990 stating that "the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon."

2. William J. Hamblin notes in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (1993): "Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency of the Church, has recently clarified the Church's position on Book of Mormon geography," after which he quotes the text of the letter. This is cited as "Correspondence from Michael Watson, Office of the First Presidency, 23 April 1993."

3. The actual letter, commonly referred to as the "2nd Watson Letter" has not been located.

4. Critics have used the fact that the letter hasn't been located to accuse Bill Hamblin, and Daniel C. Peterson, of making the second letter up. This has gone on for about 15 years.

5. Recently, a copy of a fax dated 23 April 1993 sent by Senior Executive Secretary for the Office of the First Presidency, Carla Ogden, to Brent Hall of FARMS, was located by Matt Roper. A cover letter found with the fax indicates that it was sent by F. Michael Watson. The text of the fax is identical to that quoted by Bill Hamblin in his article.

6. A copy of the fax was sent to Greg Smith, who scanned it and placed in in the FAIR wiki article dealing with the subject.

7. Critics are now using that fact that item #5 above is not a "letter" but rather an unsigned fax, and that it was sent by Senior Executive Secretary for the Office of the First Presidency, Carla Ogden, rather than by F. Michael Watson himself, to imply that Daniel C. Peterson and Bill Hamblin lied in stating that a "letter" was issued by F. Michael Watson. (see item #4)

8. CKSalmon, Brent Metcalfe, and even "Dr. Scratch" pointed out that the wording of the FAIR Wiki article needed to be altered to accommodate that fact that the response from the Office of the First Presidency was a fax. This was subsequently done.

9. Brent Metcalfe then noted that there were now three wiki articles affected (which he deduced within 99 minutes after I posted the three article links in a response to a question from "Dr. Scratch" on a completely different board, in a thread which had a title completely unrelated to the "2nd Watson Letter," presenting the three links in the exact same order as I did, thus leading to the sub-discussion on this board of what relationship or communication Mr. Metcalfe might have with "Dr. Scratch"). The text of all three wiki articles was subsequently modified to clarify the nature of the Ogden fax.

10. Brent Metcalfe then notes that the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published prior to the Ogden fax, contains language which is significantly similar to the Ogden fax. The primary wiki article was then modified to include a quote from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

11. I further modified all three wiki articles once we received confirmation that Carla Ogden was, in 1993, and still continues to be, Senior Executive Secretary for the Office of the First Presidency.

So, the bottom line:

A. In the "before time" we had no physical indication that a statement was sent from the Office of the First Presidency.

B. In the "after time" we do have physical indication that a statement was sent from the Office of the First Presidency.

C. Critics have apparently declared this a victory.

D. FAIR has significantly improved three wiki articles dealing with the subject based upon the new information and critical feedback.

Hopefully this clears up any confusion.

WW

Edited to add: I think that beastie's post above provides some interesting insight into the way the more level-headed and intelligent critics view the situation. Now you have a critical perspective and a believer's perspective.

[beastie]

Wiki - your summary completely ignores the long-term contextual debate surrounding this issue, which is: how much influence do apologists have on the brethren?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wiki - your summary completely ignores the long-term contextual debate surrounding this issue, which is: how much influence do apologists have on the brethren?

Why don't you tell us.

[beastie]

Why don't you tell us.

I just did. Post 453.

[Wiki Wonka]

Wiki - your summary completely ignores the long-term contextual debate surrounding this issue, which is: how much influence do apologists have on the brethren?

Beastie,

It was not deliberately ignored...I simply never thought to look at it from that perspective. In fact, when I read your post (after I made mine) it was the first time I had even thought of how the issue might relate to what type of influence apologists might have on the Brethren. This is why it is valuable to get perspectives from both believers and critics, and why I made the annotation regarding your post to my post above. Your question and perspective is an interesting one, and I wouldn't mind seeing it explored further.

WW

[ToGo]

I will attempt a summary for those who continue to express confusion regarding "what is going on here."

In the "before time":

1. F. Michael Watson's sends out a signed letter dated October 16, 1990 stating that "the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon."

2. William J. Hamblin notes in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (1993): "Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency of the Church, has recently clarified the Church's position on Book of Mormon geography," after which he quotes the text of the letter. This is cited as "Correspondence from Michael Watson, Office of the First Presidency, 23 April 1993."

3. The actual letter, commonly referred to as the "2nd Watson Letter" has not been located.

4. Critics have used the fact that the letter hasn't been located to accuse Bill Hamblin, and Daniel C. Peterson, of making the second letter up. This has gone on for about 15 years.

In the "after time":

1. F. Michael Watson's sends out a signed letter dated October 16, 1990 stating that "the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon."

2. William J. Hamblin notes in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (1993): "Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency of the Church, has recently clarified the Church's position on Book of Mormon geography," after which he quotes the text of the letter. This is cited as "Correspondence from Michael Watson, Office of the First Presidency, 23 April 1993."

3. The actual letter, commonly referred to as the "2nd Watson Letter" has not been located.

4. Critics have used the fact that the letter hasn't been located to accuse Bill Hamblin, and Daniel C. Peterson, of making the second letter up. This has gone on for about 15 years.

5. Recently, a copy of a fax dated 23 April 1993 sent by Senior Executive Secretary for the Office of the First Presidency, Carla Ogden, to Brent Hall of FARMS, was located by Matt Roper. A cover letter found with the fax indicates that it was sent by F. Michael Watson. The text of the fax is identical to that quoted by Bill Hamblin in his article.

6. A copy of the fax was sent to Greg Smith, who scanned it and placed in in the FAIR wiki article dealing with the subject.

7. Critics are now using that fact that item #5 above is not a "letter" but rather an unsigned fax, and that it was sent by Senior Executive Secretary for the Office of the First Presidency, Carla Ogden, rather than by F. Michael Watson himself, to imply that Daniel C. Peterson and Bill Hamblin lied in stating that a "letter" was issued by F. Michael Watson. (see item #4)

8. CKSalmon, Brent Metcalfe, and even "Dr. Scratch" pointed out that the wording of the FAIR Wiki article needed to be altered to accommodate that fact that the response from the Office of the First Presidency was a fax. This was subsequently done.

9. Brent Metcalfe then noted that there were now three wiki articles affected (which he deduced within 99 minutes after I posted the three article links in a response to a question from "Dr. Scratch" on a completely different board, in a thread which had a title completely unrelated to the "2nd Watson Letter," presenting the three links in the exact same order as I did, thus leading to the sub-discussion on this board of what relationship or communication Mr. Metcalfe might have with "Dr. Scratch"). The text of all three wiki articles was subsequently modified to clarify the nature of the Ogden fax.

10. Brent Metcalfe then notes that the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published prior to the Ogden fax, contains language which is significantly similar to the Ogden fax. The primary wiki article was then modified to include a quote from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

11. I further modified all three wiki articles once we received confirmation that Carla Ogden was, in 1993, and still continues to be, Senior Executive Secretary for the Office of the First Presidency.

So, the bottom line:

A. In the "before time" we had no physical indication that a statement was sent from the Office of the First Presidency.

B. In the "after time" we do have physical indication that a statement was sent from the Office of the First Presidency.

C. Critics have apparently declared this a victory.

D. FAIR has significantly improved three wiki articles dealing with the subject based upon the new information and critical feedback.

Hopefully this clears up any confusion.

WW

Edited to add: I think that beastie's post above provides some interesting insight into the way the more level-headed and intelligent critics view the situation. Now you have a critical perspective and a believer's perspective.

In case anyone reading WW's chronologies might not know, Professor Peterson has stated in this thread in the past few days that what Professor Hamblin quoted from and what Professor Peterson saw dated April 23, 1993 was a letter, not a fax, and it was from F. Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency, not from Carla Ogden. Professor Peterson has also posted quotes from iPhone message in recent days from Professor Hamblin that what he quoted was a letter, not a fax, and not from Carla Ogden.

[beastie]

It was not deliberately ignored...I simply never thought to look at it from that perspective. In fact, when I read your post (after I made mine) it was the first time I had even thought of how the issue might relate to what type of influence apologists might have on the Brethren. This is why it is valuable to get perspectives from both believers and critics, and why I made the annotation regarding your post to my post above. Your question and perspective is an interesting one, and I wouldn't mind seeing it explored further.

Thanks, wiki. Apparently we were cross posting, hence, I missed the annotation.

[beastie]

Perhaps this information on the fallibility of human memory might add some perspective, as well:

From

[SlackTime]

Wiki - your summary completely ignores the long-term contextual debate surrounding this issue, which is: how much influence do apologists have on the brethren?

I personally don't see where why this is a big issue. The Brethren leading the Church are good men, inspired men yes, but still with personal opinions and ideas, and still men charged just as I am to "seek out of the best books, words of wisdom...". Would such a man read Hugh Nibley? Or worse Dan Peterson?

Of course they would if they were trying to learn and grow and understand. Would that influence their ideas? Sure. Would it alter their inspirations and revelations?

My answer to that is yes. I am reminded that God commanded Joseph to translate the Book of Mormon, followed by a retranslation of the Bible (which was never published by the LDS Church, exerpts are published as notes in the current editions of the LDS scriptures). During these periods of translation, Joseph was lead to seek understanding of things he read in the scriptures. His seeking of understanding led to new revelations. I know of no revelations that came to Joseph without his first seeking it for greater understanding of one topic or another. And he was commanded to "study it out".

I would expect the same from our current leaders. They would study out issues before taking them to God. This would mean that they would learn from those best qualified to teach the current understanding of Church issues. Then, with that knowledge and the best answer they could formulate, they would go to God for confirmation.

Anyway, I think the more correct statement would be, do apologists determine policy? No. Are their writings intended to "advise the Brethren" No. Could their writings influence the conceptualizing and understanding of issues in the Church. Yes. I do not see that as a "Steadying the Ark" role.

- SlackTime

[ToGo]

Beastie,

It was not deliberately ignored...I simply never thought to look at it from that perspective. In fact, when I read your post (after I made mine) it was the first time I had even thought of how the issue might relate to what type of influence apologists might have on the Brethren. This is why it is valuable to get perspectives from both believers and critics, and why I made the annotation regarding your post to my post above. Your question and perspective is an interesting one, and I wouldn't mind seeing it explored further.

WW

WW, you might find Brent Metcalfe's post (#422 in this thread) of interest in this regard.

[Wiki Wonka]

Thanks, wiki. Apparently we were cross posting, hence, I missed the annotation.

Yes, we were. I didn't see your post until after I hit "Add Reply." And, FWIW, I did enjoy reading your take on the situation.

WW

[rockslider]

Thanks Beastie, as an uneducated member, my concerns over this issue (which I had never seen/heard about before the last few days) is even more basic than this. I don't care who might have influenced a change or what brought about the change. My concern is that it changed at all (along with a lot of other things since the early 90's).

[Calm]

To me, this all boils down to this: critics have repeatedly asserted that the recent trend has been for apologists to influence the brethren. Apologists have repeatedly denied this and downplayed their relationship to the brethren at all. The details of this episode have unraveled over years, and it

[beastie]

How does a letter/fax sent in 1993 resulting from some sort of communication with Watson or Watson's office demonstrate influence of apologists on the Brethren when the content of the letter itself is from a publication (the EoM) published one or two years earlier?

See Brent's post 422. Watson made the correction after a phone call from FARMS.

[gtaggart]

Wiki - your summary completely ignores the long-term contextual debate surrounding this issue, which is: how much influence do apologists have on the brethren?

And Beastie, your statement that

1. Watson sends a letter affirming that the brethren have long held that Hill Cumorah is in New York. This is a true statement. That is the long-held view of church leaders.

completely exaggerates the facts. I'll save you the trouble of editing the bolded part of your statement:

That is the long-held view of some church leaders.

There, that's better.

[Wiki Wonka]

WW, you might find Brent Metcalfe's post (#422 in this thread) of interest in this regard.

Yes, the problem with keeping up with popular threads such as this one, coupled with the fact that I'm so busy with other projects, is that I feel like I'm stepping into a conversation at discrete intervals, and I don't often have time to read backwards and catch up on everything that was said. My focus tends to be very "wiki-centric." I scan threads looking for any indication that I need to update or modify a FAIR wiki article.

WW

[Calm]

Perhaps this information on the fallibility of human memory might add some perspective, as well...

The rest of the book is an attempt to provide more answers in regards to why it is so difficult to relinquish unreasonable opinions, aside from cognitive dissonance. His theory is that

[Calm]

See Brent's post 422. Watson made the correction after a phone call from FARMS.

So what? The correction was not based on anything from FARMS but was a quote as Brent has demonstrated from a publication that had been under the direction of two of the brethren or possibly an original source of the EoM material. At best, FARMS "influenced" Watson by pointing out to him that his prior comment was not consistent with the Church's established position as published elsewhere; that call could have had no influence on the 'doctrine' of Watson's response since that was based on a publication that happened prior to any conversation with FARMS.

[ToGo]

OTOH, since Brent Hall was the office manager at the time, if there was any communication at all going on between FARMS and Watson and his office (and while I don't see much evidence of FARMS determining doctrine these days, there seems likely enough of a familiarity existing between SLC and what is now the Maxwell Institute that it makes sense to me that on receipt of a letter from a BYU prof connected with FARMS---the letter likely explaining the purpose was for an article to be published---that Bro. Watson would call FARMS to get more details on the background).....I would suggest the best fit would be a letter from Dr. Hamblin followed by a conversation with Bro. Watson that included an "oops" on his side and either some information shared by Dr. Hamblin that others at FARMS were also interested or perhaps a separate conversation with Brent Hall as well ultimately resulting in a letter sent to Dr. Hamblin on the 23 along with a fax to Brent Hall as notification that the conversation had been followed up on their end by showing the content of that letter. It is not like FARMS and SLC were on opposite sides of the hemisphere in those days. And certainly the critics' who hold the paradigm that beastie has described of some sort of intimate relationship between the "apologists" and the Brethren should have no problem with believing that Bro. Watson or someone in his office would respond on a receipt of such a letter with a phone call to get more details on why the interest (if you are really paranoid about it, you can substitute "instructions" for details)

And now I must make that phone call again and then I will have no excuse to be hanging around the computer.....

Am I understanding that there is an open channel of communication between the Maxwell Institute and the Brethren? Maybe Professor Peterson could now ask the Brethren where Cumorah is located.

[rockslider]

gtaggart, please itemize leaders, say pre 1985 who held a different view?

[Calm]

Am I understanding that there is an open channel of communication between the Maxwell Institute and the Brethren? Maybe Professor Peterson could now ask the Brethren where Cumorah is located.

Define "open channel".

I would say that at minimum Bro. Watson was aware of FARMS existence, likely knew how to look up phone numbers at BYU and was perfectly capable of making a casual phone call for the purpose of clarification or satisfying simple curiosity as to why anyone at FARMS cared....since after all, they had stuff like the EoM at the time for reference. Or Dr. Hamblin and/or Brent Hall on hearing that Dr. Hamblin has sent off a letter was comfortable enough to call up Br. Watson to present the request in a more casual context.

[SlackTime]

Define "open channel".

It's called the "Bat Phone"