In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[Brent Metcalfe]

If, as has been theorized, the Carla Ogden fax constitutes a 1993 reaffirmation of the pre-1985 letter, then it could indeed be considered recent.

So Bill Hamblin was quoting Ogden's fax!?

*good grief!*

Have you honestly not read the multiple denials that Bill used Ogden's fax?!

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[beastie]

DCP and others still insist his memory has not been shown to be unreliable. While Brent

[DanGB]

This "second Watson story" is starting to take on the many of the same attributes, controversies, problems of provenance and chronology as the First Vision claims!!!

Advice: "When in quicksand - best not to flail around too much! You just sink faster!" [Only for those in need of course.]

[Uncle Dale]

If, as has been theorized, the Carla Ogden fax constitutes a 1993 reaffirmation

of the pre-1985 letter, then it could indeed be considered recent.

Perhaps you are correct, Scott. Depends upon what you mean by "IT," I guess.

In which case the train of events would chug along something like this --

Bill, Dan, Mitton, Midgley, Ricks, and Coutts all laid eyes upon the pre-1985 missive,

between c. 1985 and 2004 but did not assign many memory circuits to the exact date.

Then the Ogden fax came along, spurring Bill to update his paper. But, since the fax said

essentially the same thing as the c. 1985 letter, IT (the fax) was the basis for the RECENTLY

remark, and THAT (the c. 1985 letter, pulled out of the filing cabinet to check against IT)

was the basis for the actual quote. Roper simply followed suit in 2004.

I can live with that, I guess.

(But Brent is going to have kittens)

You'd better refine the "theorized" and "it" parts, just a smidgen...

UD

added: "pre"-1985, etc.

.

[Nofear]

Let me see if I can summarize some of the "discussion" that has been going on since page 3 of the thread.

In William (Bill) J. Hamblin's article, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon" he wrote,

Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency of the Church, has recently clarified the Church's position on Book of Mormon geography.

The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.

using the citation "70. Correspondence from Michael Watson, Office of the First Presidency, 23 April 1993." for the First Presidency quote.

This letter seems to contradict the 1990 letter to Bishop Brooks to help him respond to Ronnie Sparks of his ward.

Because of the apparent contradiction between the two letters, some make the claim of collusion and forgery of the letter that Hamblin cites.

Yet, an April 1993 Fax from Carla Ogden corroborates the content of Dr. Hamblin's citation leading some to believe that Hamblin miscited the his reference - that he was really citing the fax.

But... this is denied by both editors of the publishing journal and the author. Unfortunately, Dr. Hamblin can't find the letter which he in the last few days told Dr. Peterson was written to him in 1985. This response was unsatisfactory as 1985 isn't "recent" to 1993 to some. So, the assertion is yet made again that Hamblin was citing the 1993 fax - even though Dr. Hamblin had in mind that the 1985 letter. Or, returning to more nefarious theories, the apologist conspiracy forged a letter and exerted their tremendous influence on the First Presidency to get them to corroborate their forgery with a fax.

So, I guess a few questions come to mind:

1. Did I correctly summarize the hullabaloo?

2. Couldn't one simply check when articles are due for the Vol. 1, 1993 issue of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies? If the due date for articles precedes the date of the fax (April 23, 1993) that makes the fax-citation-theory rather implausible.

3. And finally, "So what?" What is the point of all this ado?

[Daniel Peterson]

Did you "handle"/ "read" this pre-1985 letter signed by Mike Watson?

Yup. Sho did.

As I've said multiple times, I handled the letter signed by Michael Watson.

Who else can affirm the pre-1985 date on the letter? (Clearly you can't.)

Don't know, and don't really much care at this point.

How did Bill happen to coincidentally attribute the date of Watson's pre-1985 letter to the very date of Ms. Ogden's fax to Brent Hall when you and Bill have claimed no prior knowledge of Ms. Ogden's fax?

As I said above, I don't know, and I don't even know that Bill was the one who did it. It's been more than sixteen years, and it wasn't that big a deal at the time (and hasn't really become one since).

If Bill Hamblin had received a letter from the Office of the First Presidency signed by Watson, why did he omit reference to the letter in the first version of his FARMS essay distributed on 8 March 1993, yet include it in his spring 1993 revision of his essay (well after Hall had received Ms. Ogden's fax)?

Haven't the foggiest idea. Don't see it as particularly suspicious.

Papers grow. Things are added. Even old things. New ideas occur.

If readers decide that your retelling lacks credibility, you and Bill have no one to blame but yourselves.

I'm resigned to living a life without your approval. I've done so for years now.

Heck, I've lived with much worse things, and have still managed to be relatively happy, productive, and well-adjusted.

Until this alleged pre-1985 epistle signed by Mike Watson is produced for all to examine, it will remain among faith-promoting rumors that don't warrant inclusion in any scholarly study.

So far as I'm aware, the Michael Watson letter has only been used in one essay, published more than sixteen years ago.

And, to me, it doesn't much matter anyway. If somebody, in the future, wants to treat this issue again, he or she is perfectly welcome to cite the identical Carla Ogden fax from the Office of the First Presidency instead of the old Michael Watson letter, or the very similar entry in the quasi-official Encyclopedia of Mormonism (approved by Elders Maxwell and Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve), or, if feeling ambitious, to attempt to secure a newer note from the Office of the First Presidency, which, a secretary there informed me earlier this week by telephone, reads very much like the Michael Watson letter. It will make no substantive difference whatever.

I'm reminded of an old classical-studies joke: The end result of two centuries of intense German classical scholarship, it's said, is that the Iliad and the Odyssey were not, in fact, written by Homer, but by a different, contemporary, ancient Greek poet of the same name.

(

[Uncle Dale]

So far as I'm aware, the Michael Watson letter has only been used in one essay,

published more than sixteen years ago.

...

2004? -- or did Matt's use of the text fall into some other category?

UD

[Hamba Tuhan]

This "second Watson story" is starting to take on the many of the same attributes, controversies, problems of provenance and chronology as the First Vision claims!!!

Welcome to History, mate! As someone who is just finishing up a PhD in the field, I've discovered that this is exactly how it works. Just last week I had to write a lengthy footnote in which I pointed out that the numerous accounts of his birth are so contradictory that one can't even guess how old a particular local ruler was when he was baptised, and therefore one cannot be sure of the circumsances of his conversion; yet, it would be silly to conclude that this ruler didn't actually exist or that he didn't really embrace Christianity.

OK, off to my ward's Christday Day service. Merry Christmas to all!

[clairc829]

-- has never met me, and would, I suspect, not recognize me if we passed each other on the street.

If you wear the cloak you are wearing in your avatar I'm quite confidant they would recognize you even in passing.

Merry Christmas.

You are very patient I don't know how you remain so reasonable with some of these people.

[wenglund]

As creepy as it may seem that certain critics continue for more than a decade to wip up drama and fret strenuously over a relatively insignificant and benign footnote written in an article over 15 years ago (reasonable explanations to the contrary notwithstanding), nevertheless it is heart-warming to see just how intensely they hang on every word from the Dr.'s Hamblin and Peterson, and to learn how immensely important these two men must be in the critics' lives. The nit-picky devotion seems beyond fanatic to worshiful awe. Could there be a new religion in the making?

Whatever the case, I hope the critics can put this burning issue somewhat on hold enough to have a Merry Christmas.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Uncle Dale]

...The nit-picky devotion seems beyond fanatic to worshiful awe.

...

On the other hand, the nit-picking could have been avoided with

a simple, one-sentence explanation -- that Bill, Dan, Mitton, Midgley,

Ricks, and Coutts had all failed to notice the text of a pre-1985

letter got mis-cited in conjunction with a 1993 fax -- and the whole

mix-up published to the world in Matt Roper's 2004 paper.

There -- I just said it all in a single sentence.

Had Bill not lost the pre-1985 letter (which he evidently

had in his possession as late as 1993, or even 2004), this

thread would have consisted of two or three postings.

It all seems to be concluded now -- right?

UD

[wenglund]

On the other hand, the nit-picking could have been avoided with a simple, one-sentence explanation -- that Bill, Dan, Mitton, Midgley, Ricks, and Coutts had all failed to notice the text of a pre-1985 letter got mis-cited in conjunction with a 1993 fax -- and the whole mix-up published to the world in Matt Roper's 2004 paper.

Nope. Nit-picking cannot be avoided because nit-picking is what nit-pickers are determined to do, and this regardless of what is said and done by others and in spite of it not being warranted. Surely, the bulk of this thread is an obvious testiment to this fact.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Uncle Dale]

...Surely, the bulk of this thread is an obvious testiment to this fact.

...

Perhaps so. had Sgt. Joe Friday been the moderator, I suppose we'd

have "just the facts, ma'am."

Other than the "nit-picking," can "the facts" now be summarized,

(so that I can get back to my sweet potatoes and Christmas goose)?

If one sentence won't accommodate them, then certainly we can wrap it

all up in two.

A pre-1985 letter got conflated with a 1993 fax, with the former

being quoted and the latter being vaguely cited. Then, in 2004,

the problem was again brought to our notice -- 6 pairs of eyes having

failed to catch the same error, which was reproduced in Matt's paper.

There -- two sentences.

Case closed.

UD

[wenglund]

There -- two sentences. Case closed.

Fat chance. Too much sleep has been lost over this epic international incidence for some people to let it die. In fact, we have already been forewarned that there is "more to come". So, don't even think about denying these good folks their drama and their pound of flesh.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

So Bill Hamblin was quoting Ogden's fax!?

*good grief!*

Have you honestly not read the multiple denials that Bill used Ogden's fax?!

So how's that "Ignore" feature working out for you, Mr. Metcalfe?

[Scott Lloyd]

Beastie and dblagent have tried to make an issue of a brief concordance entry in "Guide to the Scriptures" about Cumorah, implying that it somehow supplants a standard statement from the First Presidency's office that apparently has been issued for 25 years or more regarding the Church taking no position regarding specific geography for Book of Mormon locales.

Getting an early start on my study of the Old Testament for next year, I ran across this passage from the preface to the Bible Dictionary in the LDS edition of the King James Bible. I think it could be applied as well to "Guide to the Scriptures" or any of the ancillary study aids the Church has prepared to supplement its current editions of the Standard Works:

This dictionary ... is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth. Many of the items have been drawn from the best available scholarship of the world and are subject to reevaluation based on new research and discoveries or on new revelation.

As Richard Neitzel Holzapfel et al. have pointed out in their new volume, Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament, "the final word on doctrinal interpretation will always rest with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, those called and chosen to provide authoritative doctrinal insight for the Church" (page 5).

[beastie]

A pre-1985 letter got conflated with a 1993 fax, with the former

being quoted and the latter being vaguely cited. Then, in 2004,

the problem was again brought to our notice -- 6 pairs of eyes having

failed to catch the same error, which was reproduced in Matt's paper.

I think it

[beastie]

This dictionary ... is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth. Many of the items have been drawn from the best available scholarship of the world and are subject to reevaluation based on new research and discoveries or on new revelation.

Is'nt 25 years enough time to "draw from the best available scholarship" and "reevaluate"?

Whether or not the scripture guide can be considered authoritative, or whether or not the Ogden fax can be considered authoritative, we still are left with the clear fact that the LDS church is willing to convey one teaching to its unfortunate "folk mormons", and entirely different teaching to its "orthodox mormons" - or, perhaps more accurately stated, "apologist mormons".

[beastie]

So how's that "Ignore" feature working out for you, Mr. Metcalfe?

How about actually addressing the point that your theory directly contradicts Hamblin's own assertions?

How about actually admitting that DCP's memory has, indeed, been incorrect on important details?

Can you do it?

[Scott Lloyd]

Is'nt 25 years enough time to "draw from the best available scholarship" and "reevaluate"?

I think boilerplate language routinely sent out when inquiries are made amounts to such re-evaluation. And I don't think a traditional but rarely scrutinized assumption matters much to anybody but critics trying to find an excuse to discredit the Book of Mormon.

[Scott Lloyd]

How about actually addressing the point that your theory directly contradicts Hamblin's own assertions?

What assertions?

How about actually admitting that DCP's memory has, indeed, been incorrect on important details?

He and I have both denied that his memory was inaccurate pertaining to germane details that he actually knew.

[beastie]

I think boilerplate language routinely sent out when inquiries are made amounts to such re-evaluation. And I don't think a traditional but rarely scrutinized assumption matters much to anybody but critics trying to find an excuse to discredit the Book of Mormon.

Really? So, somehow a member has to become suspicious of the explanation offered by the scripture study guide, and supported by prior years of church teachings, in order to become motivated enough to contact the FP with the question - and then, and only then, will the "right" answer be provided?

Once again, this seems to support my new speculation: that the brethren are aware of the dichotomy in the church, and, in their own way, are perpetuating said dichotomy.

It is time for you to reevaluate, yourself, and admit that "folk mormons" aren't ignornant, stubborn, lazy or stupid, but, in fact, are simply believing what the brethren teach them to believe?

What assertions?

The ones you ignored in Brent's post: that Hamblin (and DCP) have repeatedly denied ever seeing or HEARING of the Ogden fax.

He and I have both denied that his memory was inaccurate pertaining to germane details that he actually knew.

Getting a big dodgy there, aren't you? Now it's "germane details that he actually knew." That's a great catch-all, isn't it? It allows you to ignore that DCP asserted as fact that the whole reason the second Watson letter was received was due to Hamblin contacting the FP and asking for a clarification. While I have zero doubt that you will now find this a completely irrelevant detail, it was a main part of the whole story for years. And it's clearly wrong. If DCP is wrong about something he viewed as a FACT, and something that was a crucial element in the entire story, and he's been wrong about that for years, could he actually be wrong about other things in this story?

[beastie]

As Richard Neitzel Holzapfel et al. have pointed out in their new volume, Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament, "the final word on doctrinal interpretation will always rest with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, those called and chosen to provide authoritative doctrinal insight for the Church" (page 5).

So is the book Jehovah and the World of the OT

[beastie]

Oh, and btw- members are instructed not to contact the FP with their questions, but instead are supposed to talk to their bishops. Have bishops been provided a copy of the UR Cumorah text?

Because, you know, otherwise, the church runs the risk of a questioning member - perhaps an "orthodox mormon" in embryo - ending up going to his/her bishop, who may be an ingnorant, intransigent "folk mormon" who actually gives the embryonic "orthodox mormon" the wrong answer - the answer that the brethren are evidently quite content to have their ignorant folk mormons believe.

So, perhaps, not only are the brethren aware of the dichotomy, but by restricting where the "real" answers - you know, the answers the apologists believe - can be found, they are encouraging the profiliferation of folks mormons versus "orthodox" mormons (or, a better term may be "apologist mormons").

[Uncle Dale]

I think it