In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[Anijen]

Here is how I see it;

If the critics are right, then why hasn't the church conducted any disciplinary actions or the very least investigations? If the critics are right it would seem like an easy matter for the church to see what was sent and to start action. None has taken place, no action is presently taking place and it seems no action will be taking place (it has been 15 years). Thus the critics are not right IMO.

If the apologist are right then there was a second Watson letter and oh my gosh it got lost. Woopty doo!

[Wiki Wonka]

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

Hi rockslider,

We have a list of statements related to BoM geography made by Church leaders over the years, that we have been compiling here: Book of Mormon/Geography/Statements

The list is intended to include all of the statements that we can find, whether they be hemispheric, limited geography or anything in between. I took a quick glance through it and I think that there are a number of statements that would answer your question above. Here's one of them:

Harold B. Lee in 1966

Some say the Hill Cumorah was in southern Mexico (and someone pushed it down still farther) and not in western New York. Well, if the Lord wanted us to know where it was, or where Zarahemla was, he

[ToGo]

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.

I would define open channel for this purpose as illustrated by two examples. When Professor Hamblin writes a letter asking for clarification, Secretary Watson sends a reply letter. A telephone call between Secretary Watson and Brent Hall to discuss a matter such as the geography of Cumorah.

[gtaggart]

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

Hi rockslider. I assume you've by now seen Wiki Wonka's post. Follow the link, and you'll find all kinds of statements that place or imply that the Book of Mormon story took place in areas other than New York.

[Daniel Peterson]

Sigh. I had just about completed a complex and lengthy response to beastie when a temporary power outage destroyed it all. Maybe I'll get back to it.

Incidentally, I welcome her to a board where she won't be treated the way I was (and, amazingly, continue to be!) on her board.

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

I have never met or spoken with Michael Watson.

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

Where are all of the other letters that Michael Watson sent out, containing the same message that he sent to Bishop Brooks? Why are the critics only able to cite that letter? If they had better evidence that this is the official view of the Church, certainly they wouldn't be reduced to citing one single letter, by a secretary, to a private individual. Where are the official declarations? The sections in the Doctrine and Covenants? The proclamations of the First Presidency and the Twelve?

And "Primary lessons"? On the geography of the Book of Mormon? Are you serious?

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.

No more than there is between anybody else and the Brethren.

[beastie]

Incidentally, I welcome her to a board where she won't be treated the way I was (and, amazingly, continue to be!) on her board.

Thank you, but the last time I visited MAD I was insulted in the various ways:

Sheer and shameless dishonesty, hypocrisy, pure fabrication, intellectually dishonest, whiney passive aggressiveness, need to

[Scott Lloyd]

Where are all of the other letters that Michael Watson sent out, containing the same message that he sent to Bishop Brooks? Why are the critics only able to cite that letter? If they had better evidence that this is the official view of the Church, certainly they wouldn't be reduced to citing one single letter, by a secretary, to a private individual. Where are the official declarations? The sections in the Doctrine and Covenants? The proclamations of the First Presidency and the Twelve?

And "Primary lessons"? On the geography of the Book of Mormon? Are you serious?

For what it's worth, I work rather frequently (at least weekly) with two managers in the Church Correlation Department. It is an essential part of their duty to be knowledgeable about Church positions. I have asked them before about Book of Mormon Geography/location of Cumorah, etc., and been told essentially what is in the second Watson letter and pertinent Encyclopedia of Mormonism passage. One of them even showed me the quote from Harold B. Lee, cited in one of the posts above, about latitude and longitude. It was the first time I had seen it.

Of course, this was in personal conversations, but I submit that it carries at least as much weight as the first Watson letter, which was a personal, in-house communication never intended for publication.

[wenglund]

What I find disturbing about the issue, besides the sheer mind-numbing pettiness of it all (that it has gone on for 15 years ought to engender rightful disgust on the part of good and decent people--thank you Uncle Dale), but the seemingly flagrant violation of one of the most fundamental social contracts (what in jurisprudence is known as the "Golden Thread"--i.e the presumption of innocence).

For good reason, it is customary to take a person at their word, and this until empirical evidence gives REASONABLE cause to think otherwise. Societal trust and protection of the innocent is critically dependant thereon.

Yet, in the case of Dr. Hamblin and his footnoted statement a number of years back, it appears that certain critics have presumed him guilty of either lying or misrepresenting the truth. He is presumed guilty because he wasn't able to prove his innocence by producing a second Watson letter.

I say "flagrant violation" because not only is he presumed guilty, but he is presumed guilty in spite of the guilty presumption making little sense (it makes not sense for Dr. Hamblin to so publically put his membership in jeopardy in a Church he was vigorously defending), and also because of the alarming resistence to REASONABLE explanations suggesting his innocence.

And, to think that some of these critics have the gall to speak of "modus operandi" and "confirmation bias".

Yet, when one of their own is called into question (as when Scott Lloyd took issue with Brent regarding the familiar term "Mike"), they bristled at the very thought, and fully expected, and rightly so, that Brent would be taken at his word when explaining that "Mike" was a long-time friend of Brent's family.

I am sorry, but it just makes me shake my head. Certainly, there are issue to fuss and fret over for years, which will actually produce some semblence of good. Why not give yourself a gift for Christmas of taking on an actual worthy cause?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Daniel Peterson]

Sheer and shameless dishonesty, hypocrisy, pure fabrication, intellectually dishonest, whiney passive aggressiveness, need to

[Calm]

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

Brent, any chance you took note of the name of the ZLMB thread. As you probably know, the links are not only all broken with the new owners, but the search function--while better than it was---is still pretty useless.

It's an old enough thread that if I had the title I could find where I've archived it.

[dblagent007]

Where are all of the other letters that Michael Watson sent out, containing the same message that he sent to Bishop Brooks? Why are the critics only able to cite that letter? If they had better evidence that this is the official view of the Church, certainly they wouldn't be reduced to citing one single letter, by a secretary, to a private individual. Where are the official declarations? The sections in the Doctrine and Covenants? The proclamations of the First Presidency and the Twelve?

The Watson letter isn't the sole piece of evidence. The Church states, on its very website, as we speak, that the New York hill is the hill Cumorah.

The Church's Guide to the Scriptures:

Cumorah

A small hill located in western New York, United States of America. Here an ancient prophet named Moroni hid the gold plates containing some of the records of the Nephite and Jaredite nations. Joseph Smith was directed to this hill in 1827 by the resurrected Moroni to get these plates and translate a portion of them. This translation is the Book of Mormon.

Nephites gathered at Cumorah, Morm. 6: 2-4. Cumorah was in a land of many waters, Morm. 6: 4. Mormon hid the records in the Hill Cumorah, Morm. 6: 6. All but twenty and four Nephites were slain at Cumorah, Morm. 6: 11. We hear glad tidings from Cumorah, D&C 128: 20. Joseph Smith took plates from the Hill Cumorah, JS-H 1: 42, 50-54, 59

There is a lot of evidence where Church leaders have stated that the New York hill is the hill Cumorah. Contrast this with the relative dearth of statements consistent with the Ogden fax.

Edited to add the entire quote

[wenglund]

Thank you, but the last time I visited MAD I was insulted in the various ways:

Sheer and shameless dishonesty, hypocrisy, pure fabrication, intellectually dishonest, whiney passive aggressiveness, need to

[beastie]

007, I think you should have shared the entire quote from your link:

A small hill located in western New York, United States of America. Here an ancient prophet named Moroni hid the gold plates containing some of the records of the Nephite and Jaredite nations. Joseph Smith was directed to this hill in 1827 by the resurrected Moroni to get these plates and translate a portion of them. This translation is the Book of Mormon.

Nephites gathered at Cumorah, Morm. 6: 2-4. Cumorah was in a land of many waters, Morm. 6: 4. Mormon hid the records in the Hill Cumorah, Morm. 6: 6. All but twenty and four Nephites were slain at Cumorah, Morm. 6: 11. We hear glad tidings from Cumorah, D&C 128: 20. Joseph Smith took plates from the Hill Cumorah, JS-H 1: 42, 50-54, 59.

This seems to refute the two Cumorahs theory.

[gtaggart]

007, I think you should have shared the entire quote from your link:

This seems to refute the two Cumorahs theory.

How so? Moroni 6:6 (referred to in the 007 link) reads, in part, as follows:

therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.

Thus, there was one Cumorah for the some of the records and where those final battles took place between the Lamanites and Nephites, and there is the second Cumorah where Moroni buried "these few plates" that his father had given him.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Scott,

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.

I'm aware of your possible family connection, probably more than you realize.

But none of us posts in a vacuum here. And if I may be candid, unlike your father, you are neither a former administrator at Church headquarters nor a Church member in good standing. Hence, a typical reader is apt to see your use of the nickname as untoward familiarity and very possibly an expression of disrespect on the order of that shown by hostile critics who refer to the Prophet as "Joe Smith," or hostile, anonymous strangers on Mormon Discussions who refer to me, a non-participant on the board, by a silly nickname invented by Daniel Peterson's malevolent stalker.

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.

You may please yourself. But again, we don't post in a vacuum here, so I will feel free at any time to comment on the content and quality of your posts as I see fit, stern admonitions from Uncle Dale notwithstanding.

My best,

If so, more's the pity.

[Scott Lloyd]

Amen.

Does this mean we cannot expect a response from you on why you find it so credible that publishers of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies would have recklessly and with impunity printed a false attribution to the secretary to the First Presidency? That is, I think, a germane question, and, to use Uncle Dale's words, one of "the issues."

[beastie]

Slacktime:

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?

Your stance seems to be

[Scott Lloyd]

007, I think you should have shared the entire quote from your link:

This seems to refute the two Cumorahs theory.

As gtaggart has aptly pointed out, nothing here contradicts a theory of an ancient Cumorah, located in Meso-America, and a modern one, located in the state of New York.

Again, as reflected in communications from the First Presidency's office, an entry in a quasi-official encylopedia, and my personal conversations with Church Correlation, the Church does not espouse an institutional view regarding specific Book of Mormon geography.

And if this sounds "trite" to Brent, I would respond that reiteration is necessitated by misguided assertions to the contrary.

[Daniel Peterson]

The Watson letter isn't the sole piece of evidence. The Church states, on its very website, as we speak, that the New York hill is the hill Cumorah

Sigh.

Neither John Sorenson nor the late David Palmer nor Brent Hall nor John Clark nor William Hamblin nor I nor anybody else affiliated with the Maxwell Institute (formerly known as FARMS) denies that "an ancient prophet named Moroni hid the gold plates containing some of the records of the Nephite and Jaredite nations" in the glacial drumlin adjacent to Palmyra, New York.

Not a single one of us has ever disagreed with the proposition that "Joseph Smith was directed to this hill in 1827 by the resurrected Moroni to get these plates and translate a portion of them."

These matters are not at issue.

[Scott Lloyd]

Check. Check. Check. Check . . .

I've experienced all those, and much much more, on your board. At far higher levels of intensity. Have you been accused of sexual perversions? Been labeled with obscenities? Been obsessively stalked by anybody here? Been discussed in such terms daily, even months after your departure? Been the main topic, or a major topic, of multiple threads at any given time, long after you've left? Had your personal finances dissected? Been accused of criminal activity?

From what I have seen, Beastie is rarely, if ever, mentioned when she is not posting here. I, on the other hand, have very recently been the object of sniping from Beastie herself on her board, on which I am a non-participant.

[beastie]

Thus, there was one Cumorah for the some of the records and where those final battles took place between the Lamanites and Nephites, and there is the second Cumorah where Moroni buried "these few plates" that his father had given him.

Look again at the quote from the link:

A small hill located in western New York, United States of America. Here an ancient prophet named Moroni hid the gold plates containing some of the records of the Nephite and Jaredite nations. Joseph Smith was directed to this hill in 1827 by the resurrected Moroni to get these plates and translate a portion of them. This translation is the Book of Mormon.

Nephites gathered at Cumorah, Morm. 6: 2-4. Cumorah was in a land of many waters, Morm. 6: 4. Mormon hid the records in the Hill Cumorah, Morm. 6: 6. All but twenty and four Nephites were slain at Cumorah, Morm. 6: 11. We hear glad tidings from Cumorah, D&C 128: 20. Joseph Smith took plates from the Hill Cumorah, JS-H 1: 42, 50-54, 59.

This explicitly says the hill in NY is where Moroni buried the plates. There is absolutely nothing in this quote that would even hint at the two Cumorahs theory. The second paragraph notes that this is the same hill where Mormon buried his plates, and where the final battle was held.

[Scott Lloyd]

Look again at the quote from the link:

This explicitly says the hill in NY is where Moroni buried the plates. There is absolutely nothing in this quote that would even hint at the two Cumorahs theory.

Neither is there anything to contradict it, even in the phrase you have emphasized. It says Moroni was an ancient prophet; it doesn't say he hid the plates there anciently. Although he might have. Even in that event, though, it would not contradict the theory of there being more than one hill named Cumorah.

Again, the Church emphasizes the divinity and power of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. If nothing else of value emerges from this discussion, that much ought to be clear by now.

[beastie]

Neither is there anything to contradict it, even in the phrase you have emphasized. It says Moroni was an ancient prophet; it doesn't say he hid the plates there anciently. Although he might have. Even in that event, though, it would not contradict the theory of there being more than one hill named Cumorah.

Again, the Church emphasizes the divinity and power of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. If nothing else of value emerges from this discussion, that much ought to be clear by now.

First, as long as the historicity of the BoM is seen as an essential element in accepting its divinity, then the geography does matter.

It takes quite a stretch to interpret the quote in the manner you have. The entire statement is talking about the hill in NY. According to this statement, the hill in NY is where: Moroni hid his plates, JS got the plates, the Nephites gathered, in many waters, Mormon hid his records, all but 24 Nephites were slain.

I

[Zakuska]

Neither is there anything to contradict it, even in the phrase you have emphasized. It says Moroni was an ancient prophet; it doesn't say he hid the plates there anciently. Although he might have. Even in that event, though, it would not contradict the theory of there being more than one hill named Cumorah.

Again, the Church emphasizes the divinity and power of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. If nothing else of value emerges from this discussion, that much ought to be clear by now.

Not to mention the fact that Mormon specificaly states the he hid wagon loads of plates from which the plates he gave to Moroni were taken in the Hill Cumorah and that Moroni's plates were not hid in the same hill.

Morm. 6: 6

6 And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were asacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.

The Book of Mormon never tells us where Moroni hid his plates. Sorry Beastie, you're barking up the wrong tree.

[Scott Lloyd]

First, as long as the historicity of the BoM is seen as an essential element in accepting its divinity, then the geography does matter.

A detailed understanding of specific geographic locales is not an essential element, either for accepting the book's historicity or its divinity.

It takes quite a stretch to interpret the quote in the manner you have.

I'm not stretching in the least. I'm simply refusing to read into the quote what is not there.

I