In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[Zakuska]

I assumed you were referring to "Pirates and buried treasures and demon gaurdians and all" in a somewhat sarcastic and mocking way. Perhaps I misread you.

But if you really were referring to "Pirates and buried treasures and demon gaurdians and all" in a mocking way, you may want to pause for a moment and consider words like "slippery treasures", and "treasure digging" and "guardian spirits" before you make such jokes.

Those are the exact things I was refering to in a joking way. We know Moroni told him were to find them with out the aid of a treasure map.

[beastie]

In that case, I underestimated your sense of humor. Good one!

[DanGB]

I forget, what was this thread about?

It was this question :

I am trying to find the most convinci g works of LDS scholarship in the areas of geography, history. athropology or archaeogy in supporting the existance of the history in the Book Of Mormon.

I have seen reference to works by LDS authors who seem extreamely well credentialed and qualified to speak and address such ares of academic research and field work.

But my question, for my own needs is: has any of their works convinced the a academic world outside of what we might read in Ensign and other church sponsored publications?

So far all I've got is either: "Margaret Barker! Margaret Barker! Margaret Barker!" ( I had no dea she was an achaeogist, anthropologist, or accredited instructor of Meso-American, or pre-columbian history or even given reference to her reading and acceptance of these Lds Scholars work in BOM historicity!!). And I've gotten the "it's already been answered" response without any reference to the academic communities recognition and acceptance of the LDS scholars work attempting to establish the BOM history!

Perhaps it will be ultimately provided by yet a third Watson/Ogden letter or fax!

Sounds like the real interest though has been diverted to the he said - she said between Bret and Dan! Hell, Im catching a flight to Park City. Let me know if anything of merit comes up!!!!

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott is clearly asserting that the Ogden fax has primacy over the scripture guide. Note how he further attempts to minimize the scripture guide by referring to it as something

[Scott Lloyd]

It was this question :

So far all I've got is either: "Margaret Barker! Margaret Barker! Margaret Barker!" ( I had no dea she was an achaeogist, anthropologist, or accredited instructor of Meso-American, or pre-columbian history or even given reference to her reading and acceptance of these Lds Scholars work in BOM historicity!!). And I've gotten the "it's already been answered" response without any reference to the academic communities recognition and acceptance of the LDS scholars work attempting to establish the BOM history!

Perhaps it will be ultimately provided by yet a third Watson/Ogden letter or fax!

Sounds like the real interest though has been diverted to the he said - she said between Bret and Dan! Hell, Im catching a flight to Park City. Let me know if anything of merit comes up!!!!

Could your frustration stem from the fact that you refuse to take cognizance of reasonable responses that have been given, and people have grown bored with trying to reason with you.

[noel00]

Let me see how that would be articulated on a Sunday morning at meetings:

"Brothers and Sisters -- I know this church is true and I know it

is today being guided by Divine revelation in the person of our

beloved leader. I also know that the Maxwell Institute provides

true scholars, and that they will never lead the Church astray."

Dunno -- sounds a bit "modernistic" to me.

Let's run it by Bro. Meldrum, first...

UD

Dale what do you think we can exspect next year in BOM/Spalding studies.

A response from some LDS Scholar/literary expeert?

Some further refinement of his argument by Jockers?

We have three explanations for the BOM now:

1. Smith did it using a stone in a hat (LDS)

2. Smith did it using resources available to him

3. The Spalding/Rigdon theory

I am inclined to vote for 3 as its the most promising and exciting.

[beastie]

What you insist on marginalizing as "the Ogden fax" is in actuality an expression of the current position of the Church regarding specific Book of Mormon geography.

And what is in "Guide to the Scriptures" is only on the Web site because the Web site content matches what is in the print edition, not the other way around. For reasons already stated, I'm not impressed with citation of a brief entry in a concordance that circulates in non-English-language editions of the scriptures and could change with the next extensive revision of the scripture study aids.

And so far, no critic, including you, has given a cogently addressed the question of how the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies could with impunity publish a quote falsely attributed to the First Presidency's secretary. To even attempt to do so would be manifestly stupid. I have posed the question repeatedly to dblagent; so far he has ignored it. Would you care to take a stab at it?

Moreover, other than some nebulous academic theory, you have not persuasively substantiated your opinion that Daniel Peterson and Bill Hamblin, two professional scholars for whom accuracy is an essential quality, would misremember seeing and handling an actual letter -- not a fax -- from Michael Watson. If it were not the case, whence the citation that appeared shortly thereafter in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies?

You have not paid attention to my posts, and I

[volgadon]

It was this question :

So far all I've got is either: "Margaret Barker! Margaret Barker! Margaret Barker!" ( I had no dea she was an achaeogist, anthropologist, or accredited instructor of Meso-American, or pre-columbian history or even given reference to her reading and acceptance of these Lds Scholars work in BOM historicity!!). And I've gotten the "it's already been answered" response without any reference to the academic communities recognition and acceptance of the LDS scholars work attempting to establish the BOM history!

Perhaps it will be ultimately provided by yet a third Watson/Ogden letter or fax!

Sounds like the real interest though has been diverted to the he said - she said between Bret and Dan! Hell, Im catching a flight to Park City. Let me know if anything of merit comes up!!!!

Dan, I made mention of the late Raphael Patai of the Hebrew University, who included a bit on Nephi in his book on ancient Hebrew seafaring.

You ignored it, but when I called you on it said that it is irrelevant and not on topic.

http://books.google.com/books?id=kX7YXtI4POkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:Raphael+inauthor:Patai&lr=&ei=FH0uS4riBouCkAT-46nOAw&cd=19#v=snippet&q=mormon&f=false

[Kevin Christensen]

It was this question :

So far all I've got is either: "Margaret Barker! Margaret Barker! Margaret Barker!" ( I had no dea she was an achaeogist, anthropologist, or accredited instructor of Meso-American, or pre-columbian history or even given reference to her reading and acceptance of these Lds Scholars work in BOM historicity!!). And I've gotten the "it's already been answered" response without any reference to the academic communities recognition and acceptance of the LDS scholars work attempting to establish the BOM history!

Perhaps it will be ultimately provided by yet a third Watson/Ogden letter or fax!

Sounds like the real interest though has been diverted to the he said - she said between Bret and Dan! Hell, Im catching a flight to Park City. Let me know if anything of merit comes up!!!!

It's nice that finally did acknowlege that I mentioned Barker in relation to your initial question on this thread. But you have not acknowledged this comment, which I repeated a couple of times. The point (besides the lack of explanation points in my actual comments), being Barker is not all you got from me.

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

[noel00]

How convincing are studies by LDS on the Isaiah question? I looked recently at a OT Introduction to the OT and it accepted the division of Isaiah. I visit the local Christian bookshop and find there are commentaries on both parts of Isaiah by Evangelical scholars. How did Nephi get hold of second Isaiah? It was not written yet.

[Uncle Dale]

Dale what do you think we can exspect next year in BOM/Spalding studies.

A response from some LDS Scholar/literary expeert?

Some further refinement of his argument by Jockers?

Well, friend, that is not the topic of this thread, so I'll be brief:

Yes.

and

Yes.

We have three explanations for the BOM now:

1. Smith did it using a stone in a hat (LDS)

2. Smith did it using resources available to him

3. The Spalding/Rigdon theory

I am inclined to vote for 3 as its the most promising and exciting.

Ben McGuire is currently giving me a bad case of cold feet. I'm

almost inclined to meld #2 and #3 together, and drop Rigdon down

a few notches on the authorship probability scale. If Ben succeeds,

I'll report his outcomes here.

UD

[Daniel Peterson]

Ho ho ho!

So irritated have I become by repeated accusations that I'm a liar or that I'm losing my mind, that I actually did call the Office of the First Presidency yesterday, and a secretary there was kind enough to search through their records for me. I gave her the 1993 date. This was fine, she said, since the records of their correspondence go back to 1987. When she called back, though, she said that she was unable to find any such letter on that date in 1993, or on any date in the vicinity, although she had looked under Hamblin, Hall, and FARMS. I found this extremely puzzling, and so, she said, did she, because, she told me, the language I had reported to her sounds very much like a standard letter that they have sent out for many years now.

So I wrote to Bill and asked him, again, whether there was any chance that I was misremembering. My memory on certain things was distinct: I knew that I had seen and read and held the letter, and that it was a letter, and that it was a letter from Michael Watson.

As I've said before, though, I wasn't clear as to exactly how Professor Hamblin had made contact with Michael Watson. I had assumed that he had written to him shortly before I saw the letter, but I was always a bit hazy on that.

Now (cue drum roll), Professor Hamblin has just surprised me with something that I hadn't known, and hadn't suspected: "You are senile," he writes from Cordoba, Spain (my emphasis). "I published the letter in 1993. However, I received it while still in graduate school =before 1985."

This will certainly give rise to a whole new flurry of accusations of deception, incompetence, and etc. The Maxwell Institute is about to fall, and blah blah blah. I'm sure I'll be accused of lying, as will Professor Hamblin. We're only in it for the money. We'll say absolutely anything, because we have no integrity, etc., and etc.

I simply report the facts as they are known (or become known) to me.

According to Wikipedia, F. Michael Watson was secretary to the First Presidency from 1986 until his call as a General Authority in 2008, but had served as an assistant secretary to the First Presidency from 1972-1986.

Incidentally, the secretary reported that somebody else had called them and requested a search for the letter about a year ago, and that the office had failed to find the "1993" letter at that time, too. It wasn't yours truly, and, so far as I'm aware, it wasn't Professor Hamblin. My bet is that it was my Malevolent Stalker, or somebody of that ilk. But who knows?

As to why the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies apparently gives the date of the Carla Ogden fax as the date of the letter from Michael Watson, I could not begin to say. I am not, and have never been, the editor of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.

And why did Michael Watson write something else to Bishop Brooks in 1990? Again, I cannot say. I simply report the facts as I know them or learn them. And then I'm accused of being a lying fool. That's pretty much how it works.

[Uncle Dale]

Ho ho ho!

...

1985

...

I previously mentioned to you something about Christmas gifts, did I not?

Have a good one, Doc.

UD

[Doctor Steuss]

[...] How did Nephi get hold of second Isaiah? It was not written yet.

Oh ye of little faith. Know ye not of the TARDIS they did find in the wilderness?

[Zakuska]

Oh ye of little faith. Know ye not of the TARDIS they did find in the wilderness?

Its easier than that good Dr.

Didn't Nephi have the same stones Joseph did to interpret the Book of Mormon?

[scooby]

So the last Watson letter is really the first, and the first is the last.

[Zakuska]

And theres a bunch of gray area in between.

[Calm]

As to why the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies apparently gives the date of the Carla Ogden fax as the date of the letter from Michael Watson, I could not begin to say. I am not, and have never been, the editor of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.

Perhaps one of their proof readers knew of the fax and assumed it was what Dr. Hamblin was referring to and added the date on to it (Dr. Hamblin's footnote originally lacking a date).

[scooby]

1985 - Watson: no geographical claims

1990 - Watson: same Cumorah

1991 - Encyclopedia of Mormonism: no geographical claims

1993 - Carla Ogden: no geographical claims

It now becomes apparent that the language in the '85 and '93 letters weren't pulled out of the '91 Encyclopedia, but that the language of all three came from a preexisting church response to the issue.

[Uncle Dale]

1985 - Watson: no geographical claims

1990 - Watson: same Cumorah

1991 - Encyclopedia of Mormonism: no geographical claims

1993 - Carla Ogden: no geographical claims

It now becomes apparent that the language in the '85 and '93 letters weren't pulled out of the '91 Encyclopedia, but that the language of all three came from a preexisting church response to the issue.

It's called "boilerplate."

I once worked in a newspaper office, where we had some standardized replies

written up for disgruntled customers, disgruntled advertisers, etc. The

"boilerplate" had been pre-approved by the newspaper proprietors, and we

peons merely used our discretion as how best to make form letters out

of the pre-approved verbiage. If we were especially attentive, we might

even insert a sentence or two of our own thoughts/response.

Standard operating procedure in many offices, I'm sure.

UD

.

[beastie]

Somebody pass Scott the smelling salts. I'm sure he's swooned at the notion of professional scholars having fallible memories.

[dblagent007]

Ho ho ho!

So irritated have I become by repeated accusations that I'm a liar or that I'm losing my mind, that I actually did call the Office of the First Presidency yesterday, and a secretary there was kind enough to search through their records for me. I gave her the 1993 date. This was fine, she said, since the records of their correspondence go back to 1987. When she called back, though, she said that she was unable to find any such letter on that date in 1993, or on any date in the vicinity, although she had looked under Hamblin, Hall, and FARMS. I found this extremely puzzling, and so, she said, did she, because, she told me, the language I had reported to her sounds very much like a standard letter that they have sent out for many years now.

So I wrote to Bill and asked him, again, whether there was any chance that I was misremembering. My memory on certain things was distinct: I knew that I had seen and read and held the letter, and that it was a letter, and that it was a letter from Michael Watson.

As I've said before, though, I wasn't clear as to exactly how Professor Hamblin had made contact with Michael Watson. I had assumed that he had written to him shortly before I saw the letter, but I was always a bit hazy on that.

Now (cue drum roll), Professor Hamblin has just surprised me with something that I hadn't known, and hadn't suspected: "You are senile," he writes from Cordoba, Spain (my emphasis). "I published the letter in 1993. However, I received it while still in graduate school =before 1985."

This will certainly give rise to a whole new flurry of accusations of deception, incompetence, and etc. The Maxwell Institute is about to fall, and blah blah blah. I'm sure I'll be accused of lying, as will Professor Hamblin. We're only in it for the money. We'll say absolutely anything, because we have no integrity, etc., and etc.

I simply report the facts as they are known (or become known) to me.

According to Wikipedia, F. Michael Watson was secretary to the First Presidency from 1986 until his call as a General Authority in 2008, but had served as an assistant secretary to the First Presidency from 1972-1986.

Incidentally, the secretary reported that somebody else had called them and requested a search for the letter about a year ago, and that the office had failed to find the "1993" letter at that time, too. It wasn't yours truly, and, so far as I'm aware, it wasn't Professor Hamblin. My bet is that it was my Malevolent Stalker, or somebody of that ilk. But who knows?

As to why the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies apparently gives the date of the Carla Ogden fax as the date of the letter from Michael Watson, I could not begin to say. I am not, and have never been, the editor of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.

And why did Michael Watson write something else to Bishop Brooks in 1990? Again, I cannot say. I simply report the facts as I know them or learn them. And then I'm accused of being a lying fool. That's pretty much how it works.

Well, I think this conclusively establishes that your recollection on this matter cannot be trusted.

One question immediately pops into my mind. Have you ever talked to Bill about the Watson letter controversy before? It's hard to believe that he never mentioned such a critical fact to you (or apparently anyone else) in the 15+ years that this has been an issue. Has Bill ever participated in any discussions on this subject on the Internet (e.g., ZLMB)? It would be interesting to see what he said if he did.

I have one more follow-up question. Would you mind sharing the text of the communication that you sent to Bill that caused him to send his reply to you?

[Calm]

Well, I think this conclusively establishes that your recollection on this matter cannot be trusted.

Why? He has been consistent all along that he saw a letter the content of which was included in Dr. Hamblin's article. He is a witness in this case to aspects that he was directly involved in.

He was not involved in Dr. Hamblin's sending of the letter in 85 or so which is where he went wrong. That his memory was faulty in reporting things that he was not directly involved in does not automatically yield the result that his memory is faulty for things he was active in.

[scooby]

-too off topic-

[notHagoth7]

Dale what do you think we can exspect next year in BOM/Spalding studies.

A response from some LDS Scholar/literary expeert?

Some further refinement of his argument by Jockers?

We have three explanations for the BOM now:

1. Smith did it using a stone in a hat (LDS)

2. Smith did it using resources available to him

3. The Spalding/Rigdon theory

I am inclined to vote for 3 as its the most promising and exciting.

And what is it that, for you, makes it the most promising and exciting?

(When the manuscript was discovered years ago - which deflated the Spaulding myth for many others.)