In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[wenglund]

I think it

[wenglund]

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?

If such a monumental cricis were to ever occur wamong more than but a few disgruntled former members, I trust that the Church's Social Services division can easily set up a Trauma Center with grievance counseling.

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.

If true, then oh...the horror.

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?

This is fantastic. A straw man constructed from the nits you've been picking. Is there no end to your uncommon talents?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[beastie]

This is fantastic. A straw man constructed from the nits you've been picking. Is there no end to your uncommon talents?

Unless you actually provide support for your accusation that I've constructed a strawman, I will just view your response as noise with no substance.

If such a monumental cricis were to ever occur wamong more than but a few disgruntled former members, I trust that the Church's Social Services division can easily set up a Trauma Center with grievance counseling.

So you see no reason that insisting that the One Cumorah is the "real" church teaching on the matter could cause future problems regarding belief in the BoM? Interesting, given the efforts apologists have gone to to demonstrate that the One Cumorah is not official church teaching. One might be forgiven for thinking that the involved apologists actually think the matter is of some significance. Perhaps they need some sort of counseling as well.

[beastie]

OK -- can you at least remove the confusion regarding those

people who saw the pre-1985 letter and missed noticing that its

being quoted with a 1993 date citation was problematic?

Who were they?

Who actually saw the pre-1985 letter? Was its reproduction in

Matt Roper's 2004 paper truly the last time the pre-1985 letter

was quoted in published LDS scholarship?

I can easily live with six different people forgetting the pre-1985

date -- and especially so, if the 1993 fax was regarded as simply

confirming the pre-1985 letter.

I'm just uncertain as to whose names constitute that list of those

six forgetful LDS scholars.

I thought that Brent had shared a former post of DCP

[Calm]

The scripture database that includes the Guide to the Scriptures at lds.org is not there as the primary source for people to go to in order to study their scriptures. It is not the replacement of the hard copy of the scriptures, but the reflection of them just as other published material generally follows the hold in the hand variety rather than the view with the eye version. Thus when the new Gospel Principles manual was released, the web version did not change until after the hard copy had several months to become available and after most wards had received their orders for next year's lessons---at least if they ordered them on time--and therefore would have the new version in hand rather than the old.

Until the next official change in the printing of the scriptures (such as the one that occurred in '81 IIRC), there is unlikely to be any change made in the online version even if the change has been planned for years in advance as is evidence by the website following the current official text and not the one issued by Doubleday*.

This seems to me an intelligent use of the website, encouraging people to be dependent on their personal copies of the scriptures while still providing them with the ease of the web version for quick research and cut and pasting for writing of talks, etc. It allows for consistency in usage among members---everyone using the same texts for their Sunday studies---which is, I think, more important to the work in the eyes of most members than having the latest in anticipated textual revisions.

At the very least any discussion based on the text of the Guide to the Scriptures as indicating some authoritative stance of the Church should be put off until the next official complete revision of the Guide to the Scriptures is released (which probably won't occur until the next official revision of the Scriptures themselves).

*Looks like I am out of date on this, Alf's post having brought my attention to the change. Hopefully this means a new version of the scriptures will be appearing soon, but it may mean that they are simply making the English version mirror other language translations that are more recent and therefore follow the Doubleday English version. Perhaps someone who is familiar with the language of the new translation can tell us which version they follow--the 81 or the DD.

[beastie]

The scripture database that includes the Guide to the Scriptures at lds.org is not there as the primary source for people to go to in order to study their scriptures. It is not the replacement of the hard copy of the scriptures, but the reflection of them just as other published material generally follows the hold in the hand variety rather than the view with the eye version. Thus when the new Gospel Principles manual was released, the web version did not change until after the hard copy had several months to become available and after most wards had received their orders for next year's lessons---at least if they ordered them on time--and therefore would have the new version in hand rather than the old.

Until the next official change in the printing of the scriptures (such as the one that occurred in '81 IIRC), there is unlikely to be any change made in the online version even if the change has been planned for years in advance as is evidence by the website following the current official text and not the one issued by Doubleday.

This seems to me an intelligent use of the website, encouraging people to be dependent on their personal copies of the scriptures while still providing them with the ease of the web version for quick research and cut and pasting for writing of talks, etc. It allows for consistency in usage among members---everyone using the same texts for their Sunday studies---which is, I think, more important to the work in the eyes of most members than having the latest in anticipated textual revisions.

At the very least any discussion based on the text of the Guide to the Scriptures as indicating some authoritative stance of the Church should be put off until the next official complete revision of the Guide to the Scriptures is released (which probably won't occur until the next official revision of the Scriptures themselves).

So, to which source will Mormons, in general, have more access: the online scripture study guide, or the Ogden fax?

[Uncle Dale]

I thought that Brent had shared a former post of DCP

[Calm]

So, to which source will Mormons, in general, have more access: the online scripture study guide, or the Ogden fax?

Since there is no difference between the "online" scripture study guide and the "offline" scripture study guide, why the qualification here?

As to your question, if one is only concerned with the online scripture version as specifically identified by you, I would say the content of the fax is equally available as the online scripture guide as the content is present in the online version of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and therefore if there is a member who can access the scriptures online, s/he is also able to access the Eom: http://www.lib.byu.edu/Macmillan/ and possibly here if this link works: http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/EoM&CISOPTR=4391&CISOSHOW=5649&REC=1

I do not understand the reason for your question though.

[beastie]

Dale,

I found it, post 63:

DCP

Here are the facts: Bill Hamblin wrote to the First Presidency for clarification of the earlier letter. I didn't see his request for clarification, but I gather that he suggested some of the reasons why many of us think the question of the location of the final battles remains open, or, even, should probably be answered with "Mesoamerica." I did, however, see Brother Watson's response, on First Presidency letterhead, and I am the editor of the FARMS Review, in which the entire text of that response (apart from the greeting and the signature) was published. My two associate editors of the FARMS Review, George Mitton and Prof. Louis Midgley, also saw it, as did the Review's production editor, Dr. Shirley Ricks, and the Maxwell Institute's director of publications, Alison V. P. Coutts, and at least one source checker.

Regrettably, Professor Hamblin subsequently mislaid the original letter, and he has no idea now where it is. This has provided an opening for my Malevolent Stalker and one or two of his acolytes to suggest that Professor Hamblin and I forged it, or, even, that it never existed in any real form at all.

Before tiring of the endless idiocy of the "discussion," I repeatedly invited my Malevolent Stalker or anybody else to contact the Office of the First Presidency and suggest to them that two faculty members at Brigham Young University had consciously forged and published a statement purporting to come from the Office of the First Presidency. If the charge were found to be true, there can be no question that the ramifications for Professor Hamblin and myself, both ecclesiastical and professional, would be swift and severely damaging.

It's odd that even the designated source checker didn't spot the error. Isn't that the job of a source checker? All this, as well as the other things I've noted, lead me to believe that the Ogden fax was always the source.

[Calm]

It's odd that even the designated source checker didn't spot the error. Isn't that the job of a source checker? All this, as well as the other things I've noted, lead me to believe that the Ogden fax was always the source.

So you believe in the infallibility of source checkers?

[beastie]

Since there is no difference between the "online" scripture study guide and the "offline" scripture study guide, why the qualification here?

Because the church would be within its right to add a qualifier to the scripture study guide, and could have easily done so within the past 25 years to the online version. Or is there some sort of rule forbidding them from doing so? The church has never been shy about altering things in the past, including the scriptures themselves.

No matter. The question's answer was so obvious as to be rhetorical. The church is quite content to continue allowing its members to believe something that a good "orthodox mormon" like Scott would view as folk mormonism. It's been brought to their attention as problematic, they've supposedly created some UR text to deal with it in 1981. The explanation that "they can't change it because it has to match the print version" isn't very persuasive, IMO, and sounds like an alibi.

How many people have even heard of the Watson letter?

Hey, guess what. When I visited the online version of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, guess what I found on the first page:

The original authors of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism have updated many of the articles in this publication. Please visit their wiki to find and read updated versions of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism articles.

Now, is that so hard? Why not add a similar statement to the online scripture study guide? Why condemn millions of Mormons to the ranks of the ignorant, intransigent, and lazy folks mormons?

[beastie]

So you believe in the infallibility of source checkers?

LOL. We're hardly talking about infallibility. The fact checker was looking at the exact source along with the other individuals and didn't notice it was erroneous. So in this case, the better question would be:

So do you believe in the competence of source checkers?

In this case, the answer would have to be NO, unless, of course, the source really was the Ogden fax, which is what I believe to be the case.

[Uncle Dale]

Dale,

I found it, post 63:

DCP

It's odd that even the designated source checker didn't spot the error. Isn't that the job of a source checker? All this, as well as the other things I've noted, lead me to believe that the Ogden fax was always the source.

Is it possible that the date had a staple in it, or was a turned-down corner,

or through some other detraction, it was made invisible to these scholars?

There must be some reason why they all thought that the pre-1985 text was

actually from the year 1993.

It's puzzling.

UD

[beastie]

Is it possible that the date had a staple in it, or was a turned-down corner,

or through some other detraction, it was made invisible to these scholars?

There must be some reason why they all thought that the pre-1985 text was

actually from the year 1993.

All we can do is speculate, and my speculation is that the simplest explanation is that they were looking at the 1993 fax. It was the 1993 fax that was used for the various printed sources mentioned. They weren

[Calm]

They

[Uncle Dale]

...Hamblin and Peterson

[beastie]

This is a rather amusing comment.

Yes, I understand that believers think that the idea that the 1993 fax was always the source, and that no one was handling the 1985 letter in the first place, is a convoluted theory, but, oh well. Instead, believers find some sort of never revealed UR text, Watson saying one thing and saying something contradictory five years later, Peterson being "astonished" at a GA believing in two cumorahs despite the existence of a UR text for nearly a decade, and editors going behind the author's back to change the date on a source, far simpler and more believable than my theory. Oh, and I forgot, whatever reason someone thought of for Hamblin's March version not referencing the Watson letter and yet his later spring version did reference it, saying that Waston "recently" clarified. Or is that one left untouched...I can't keep track anymore of the strings that believers are busily tying up all to avoid what I think is simple: Hamblin and Peterson are mistaken in their memories, and the 1993 fax was always the source for the printed texts that referred to it. Good grief, the convoluted theories believers are offering on this thread are so complex I can't even keep track of all of them. I bet believers can't, either.

I think that is a matter for them to address (if they wish to do so)

and that our speculation goes nowhere, without some additional testimony.

For example, the source-checker could come forward and admit that

she did not actually see the pre-1985 letter, (and only had the text

from the 1993 paper in her hands in 2004), when she confirmed the

authenticity of the date matching the text.

But that would be contrary to what you've just told me. So now I'm

more confused than ever.

No, that agrees with what I said. I don't think anyone actually was handling the 1985 letter in the first place. I think they were always looking at the 1993 fax. I think it is only the vagaries of human memory that have led Hamblin and Peterson to insist otherwise - and, despite the fact that believers here can't admit it, Peterson's memory has already been shown to be unreliable.

[beastie]

In addition, any questioning of the witnesses would have to be done in an extremely careful, nonleading manner, otherwise the results would have to be considered tainted, as well.

[Uncle Dale]

...I think they were always looking at the 1993 fax.

...

So, if the 1993 fax, recently exhibited, is identical to

Hamblin's 1993 quotation and Roper's 2004 reproduction,

why do the 1993 published paper and the 2004 published

paper seemingly present text not found in the 1993 fax?

Can we transcribe the contents of those two texts and

place the transcription here in a MB posting, to see if

they are indeed identical?

UD

.

[Calm]

believers find some sort of never revealed UR text. etc.

Please don't put words in my mind, let alone my 'mouth'. Why don't you stick to explaining your own theories and let others do their own explanations....

[beastie]

Please don't put words in my mind, let alone my 'mouth'. Why don't you stick to explaining your own theories and let others do their own explanations....

I did not put words in your mouth. I said that believers on this thread are postulating the various convoluted theories I then listed, which they are.

So, if the 1993 fax, recently exhibited, is identical to

Hamblin's 1993 quotation and Roper's 2004 reproduction,

why do the 1993 published paper and the 2004 published

paper seemingly present text not found in the 1993 fax?

Can we transcribe the contents of those two texts and

place the transcription here in a MB posting, to see if

they are indeed identical?

Good idea. I have to go run some errands, but maybe later today I'll attempt that, or maybe someone else will do so in the meantime.

[Calm]

I did not put words in your mouth. I said that believers on this thread are postulating the various convoluted theories I then listed, which they are.

Yet you responded to my comment about being amused which amusement was in reality not about the critics' theories on this thread, but elsewhere.

[Calm]

LOL. We're hardly talking about infallibility. The fact checker was looking at the exact source along with the other individuals and didn't notice it was erroneous. So in this case, the better question would be:

So do you believe in the competence of source checkers?

In this case, the answer would have to be NO, unless, of course, the source really was the Ogden fax, which is what I believe to be the case.

I believe that source checkers sometimes make mistakes, which is why I find the use of the term "odd" for that mistake odd.

[Alf O'Mega]

It means merely that the Church Web site reflects what is in the print editions of the scriptures, not the other way around. To attach any other significance to it than this amounts to misguided conjecture.

If and when the print edition is revised, the on-line version will reflect the changes.

An illustration is the deletion of the word "principal" from the introduction to the Book of Mormon referring to the Lamanites as the ancestors of the American Indians. The word is no longer in the Doubleday commercial publication of the book, which was published with the cooperation of the Church. But the change has yet to be made in the LDS edition. I'm told that the next revision will reflect it, but it hasn't happened yet. However, Doubleday was made privy to it so they could go ahead and make the change in their lattr printings of the book.

Ergo, both the Church's on-line and print versions of the Book of Mormon still contain the word "principal." This is for the sake of consistency, which is one of the objectives of the Correlation movement.

. . .

The wheels turn slowly. I understand that curriculum revisions, especially the more important ones like revisions to the ancillary material in the editions of the scriptures, involve a lengthy process involving many drafts, reviews, committee sessions, etc. There is the issue of simultaneous revisions in the many languages in which the materials are published.

You may not like it, but your disapproval does not change the fact that the Web edition conforms to what is in print, not the other way around.

You'll be happy to learn that the online version of the Book of Mormon's introduction has indeed dropped the "principal" wording. Can the "Cumorah, Hill" entry be far behind?

[Calm]

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".

So you are saying that the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (a source in existence prior to the Ogden fax you seem to be ignoring the import of) is meant solely for "apologist mormons"?