In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[Calm]

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?

I doubt they will change the Guide piecemeal, but it is certainly possible that given the publication of the EoM that when the Guide does change, that entry will be one of those revised.

[Calm]

(B)elievers went on for an unbelievable ten pages about Dan Vogel

[Alf O'Mega]

I doubt they will change the Guide piecemeal, but it is certainly possible that given the publication of the EoM that when the Guide does change, that entry will be one of those revised.

If the introduction was changed in-flight, why couldn't the guide be also?

[Calm]

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?

If you can demonstrate that such has occurred with scriptures and their appendices in the past--something that serves a different purpose than the EoM---then I would be more impressed. Until then, I will simply assume the lack of change in the online scripture text is due to the consistent application of consistency through Church approved (as in use on Sunday) materials that has been going on since at least the Correlation Committee came into existence.

I may be wrong in this, but I believe a different organization handles the lds.org site than the byu.edu site. Due to the academic nature of byu.edu, it makes sense that they see it as appropriate to update on a continual basis rather than in chunks as it appears that lds.org does.

[ToGo]

In reverse chronology,

In Matthew Roper's 2004 article in FARMS Review (http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=2&id=555), the quote is

"The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography," agreed Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in a 1993 statement:

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.

107

[Correspondence from Michael Watson, 23 April 1993, as cited in William J. Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon,"

Journal of Book of Mormon Studies

2/1 (1993): 181.]

William J. Hamblin's 1993 article in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (http://mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=2&num=1&id=25) mentions and quotes

Finally, Wilson does not mention the fact that the Latter-day Saint Church has no official position on Book of Mormon geography,⁶⁸ [68. See nn. 38

[Calm]

If the introduction was changed in-flight, why couldn't the guide be also?

I have a NIL who works on lds.org (at least last time I talked with him which is awhile) with whom I have discussed efforts to update the website over time. It is a massive endeavour and if something is not a priority, then it takes a back seat (I have been pushing for a library inventory system for eons it seems, nowhere in sight yet and that imo would have a greater impact in people's lives than such a change as being desired here...especially since that information is available elsewhere already for those who are interested in the subject). add-on: I forgot to mention that direction of one conversation was that they prefer not to 'worry' at a site (my words, not his), but put it up in its final form---at least for that particular update. I don't know if they are always successful or stick to this philosophy in each and every case, but apparently they don't want to have changes appearing in longterm content all the time, but keep a consistent appearance and content to the best of their ability.

If a decision is made to revise the Guide, at what point should they stop? If only one citation, then why is this one the most important one? Perhaps there are citations that other readers find inaccurate in their implications or confusing.

I suspect that this is really an issue only for critics and few members have complained about it. I don't believe I've heard any member even mention this reference in this regard until a critic brings it up (OTOH, I know lots of members who have discussed the "principal ancestors" even outside of apologetic discussions so I suspect there was quite a bit of 'feedback' on this issue from members prior to the change in the DD edition and now the online one).

I obviously don't know the rationale for specific decisions. I choose to draw conclusions in this case from what I know of the general procedure that has been both given by the Church in discussions about the correlation committee and the past publications of new scripture editions as well as my discussions about the methodology of updating lds.org with my NIL and another individual when I participated in some surveys for the purpose of deciding how best to update format and what features to offer for members.

If you want answers from someone who knows more about specifics, why not do what I did and contact people at lds.org and ask them.

[Calm]

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.

Exactly.

[beastie]

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

I

[Uncle Dale]

In reverse chronology... There is mention of a pre-1985 letter.

Thank you very much.

It looks like to me that the Roper replica does not even

contain a date (1993 or pre-1985) -- so why editors and

proof-readers would be expected to look at a pre-1985 letter

in readying the 2004 paper for publication is beyond me.

The matter thus appears to be settled,

once and for all.

UD

[Calm]

I

[beastie]

Since Cal reminded me that the scripture study guide is part of the curriculum approved by the correlation committee, it seems to lend it even more authority and weight. After all the EoM is not subject to the correlation committee oversight, is it? We all know from past debates that the mere fact of a prophet making a statement does not mean that the statement is to be considered authoritative

[beastie]

It does nothing of the sort. It is merely recognition that this material is often used as a reference just as the pictures and music and other things the CC of the Church provides to all wards and members who desire them for personal study/teaching to flesh out the lesson and scripture material, yet are not in any way seen as "canonized" or anything close from what I've seen in my decades as a church librarian.

Are you really suggesting that being approved as curriculum by the correlation committee does not lend more authority and credence to a source, as compared to one that has not been approved as curriculum by the correlation committee?

Between the 1920s and early 1960s, there was an increase in printed material available to LDS Church members, much of which contained opinions or quotes of church leaders that contradicted the official positions and doctrines of the church. In addition, historical documents surfaced, were made available or printed from early members diaries which did not support the official church history. To counter this, the Correlation Committee, under the direction of the First Presidency, began to print materials and other curriculum to clarify and standardize what the church hierarchy considered to be official doctrine and history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_Correlation_Program

[Calm]

Since Cal reminded me that the scripture study guide is part of the curriculum approved by the correlation committee, it seems to lend it even more authority and weight.

An 'authoritative and weighty' part of the curriculum as approved by the correlation committee:

The Goldfish

My darling little goldfish hasn

[mfbukowski]

Why is it that when I read these words I hear them in the voice of Inspector Clouseau?

With the alarming gravity and universal import of what Beastie has just revealed, I think we all can agree that a Pulitzer Prize is in order, if not the Chief Inspector Clouseau Award for Epic Investigations.

Once again, we seem to be on the same wavelength...

[mfbukowski]

Beastie

I promised I would be back to you on the 26th, at this point, not that it matters much, but since I said I would be, here I am for what it's worth at this point.

After reviewing our previous conversation and putting as much effort into it (not much) as I felt it was worth, I think that Scott's point is perfectly made here. Your position was that he had put the current statement of Watson ahead of the published guide, which I found peculiar since Watson was not a GA at the time of the alleged statement.

But I think Scott states his case here and makes it perfectly clear:

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:

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).

I think Scott has made his position clear, and I agree with him. This is all much ado about nothing.

The FP has made it clear that they take NO position on Cumorah, and the Joseph Smith History says Joseph obtained the plates in Western New York. It is a perfectly reasonable inference that the Cumorah in Western New York is where the plates were deposited, since that is where they were obtained. Were I to write a manual, I might very well make that inference.

And yet the FP says they take no position on the matter.

This is precisely like the evolution issue. The church takes no official position on evolution, yet there are many many statements made throughout history which imply that the church is opposed to evolution, which is not the case.

The manual goes with the "one Cumorah" idea which is not in conflict with church doctrine, and some scholars advocate a two Cumorah theory, which is also not in conflict with church doctrine.

I still cannot for the life of me see any conflict here whatsoever, and really honestly think this whole thing is a waste.

I told you I would get back to you and now I have.

[beastie]

Simply because something has been included by the CC does not give us any insight into its specific value in comparison to other materials (in case my point was missed).

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

Should that which is written in Church publications and lesson manuals be taken as official doctrine?

Dean L. Larsen,

[Calm]

The manual goes with the "one Cumorah" idea which is not in conflict with church doctrine, and some scholars advocate a two Cumorah theory, which is also not in conflict with church doctrine.

Which is nicely summarized by the last sentence of the EoM citation which I won't type up now due to having to run off to work. Got toys to play with!

[ToGo]

This is an ADDENDUM to my post #680:

It is Daniel C. Peterson in this thread that represented on December 23, 2009 that William J. Hamblin texted him that day saying the source for the quote in his 1993 article, cited as from an F. Michael Watson correspondence of April 23, 1993, is actually a pre-1985 letter from Watson to Hamblin while Hamblin was yet a graduate student. No facsimile of the pre-1985 letter has yet been produced; it is not mentioned by date (which is pre-1985) in any of the writings from which the quotes are drawn.

There has also been speculation that a UR statement or the 1981 book by David A. Palmer might be the origin of or closer secondary source to the origin of the phrases and alleged no-Cumorah-geography position of the LDS Church that are found in the 1992

[beastie]

I think Scott has made his position clear, and I agree with him. This is all much ado about nothing.

The FP has made it clear that they take NO position on Cumorah, and the Joseph Smith History says Joseph obtained the plates in Western New York. It is a perfectly reasonable inference that the Cumorah in Western New York is where the plates were deposited, since that is where they were obtained. Were I to write a manual, I might very well make that inference.

And yet the FP says they take no position on the matter.

This is precisely like the evolution issue. The church takes no official position on evolution, yet there are many many statements made throughout history which imply that the church is opposed to evolution, which is not the case.

The manual goes with the "one Cumorah" idea which is not in conflict with church doctrine, and some scholars advocate a two Cumorah theory, which is also not in conflict with church doctrine.

I still cannot for the life of me see any conflict here whatsoever, and really honestly think this whole thing is a waste.

I told you I would get back to you and now I have.

Well, certainly it

[Anijen]

The FP has made it clear through private communications to questioning individuals. Yet in the subsequent 28 years, it

[mfbukowski]

The FP has made it clear through private communications to questioning individuals. Yet in the subsequent 28 years, it

[beastie]

This obviously is an opinionated statement. Although I like your incendiary language such as the bold portion above. Perhaps the simple answer is they (the FP) don't allow themselves to answer every frivolous disagreement that often arises. Perhaps it is a weak attempt to keep this (yawn) thread going.

Incendiary how? Perhaps you object to my earlier description of "folk mormons" as lazy, ignorant, and intransigent? If so, perhaps you should discuss this with Scott Lloyd, who coined the term and also used the pejorative adjectives to describe folk mormons.

If the thread is so boring to you, why are you reading it and responding on it? Boredom is best expressed by avoiding the thread in question, for your sanity and the sake of others who may find the topic interesting.

I have not seen any evidence of this, and think this is a serious charge you should be prepared to back up. CFR

Have you read the thread?

The assertion is that the FP, since 1981, has asserted that the church has no official position on the location of Hill Cumorah. Yet on the current scripture guide, which could have been revised in 2000 and likely several times before that, still connects Hill Cumorah to the hill in western NY.

[mfbukowski]

Have you read the thread?

The assertion is that the FP, since 1981, has asserted that the church has no official position on the location of Hill Cumorah. Yet on the current scripture guide, which could have been revised in 2000 and likely several times before that, still connects Hill Cumorah to the hill in western NY.

I most definitely have read the thread, though you intentionally make it quite difficult to follow the discussion since you never cite the post to which you are responding. In a thread this long, this enables you to make comments to anyone you like without any responsibility for follow up. I find this to be a dishonest practice. If you don't know how to cite the post to which you are responding, all you need to do is to keep those little numbers at the top of your post after you hit the reply button.

Your statement was as follows:

The FP has made it clear through private communications to questioning individuals. Yet in the subsequent 28 years, it

[mfbukowski]

This obviously is an opinionated statement. Although I like your incendiary language such as the bold portion above. Perhaps the simple answer is they (the FP) don't allow themselves to answer every frivolous disagreement that often arises. Perhaps it is a weak attempt to keep this (yawn) thread going.

Maybe you are right, and I should drop the whole thing. It is ridiculous to carry this on any longer.

[beastie]

Given that the preface to the EoM says this:

Lest the role of the Encyclopedia be given more weight than it deserves, the editors make it clear that those who have written and edited have only tried to explain their understanding of Church history, doctrines, and procedures: their statements and opinions remain their own. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a joint produce of Brigham Young University and Macmillan Publishing Company, and its contents do not necessarily represent the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In no sense does the Encyclopedia have the force and authority of scripture.

And that the church said this about Correlation approved material:

While the content of the approved Church publications identified above does not claim the same endorsement that the standard works receive, nonetheless they are prepared with great care and are carefully screened before they are published. Writers of curriculum materials must be cleared by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. Their product is reviewed closely by the heads of the organizations that are responsible for their implementation. Correlation Review committees check carefully for doctrinal accuracy and for harmony with established Church policies and procedures.