In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[beastie]

I most definitely have read the thread, though you intentionally make it quite difficult to follow the discussion since you never site 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.

Are you seriously accusing me of dishonesty because I don

[mfbukowski]

Are you seriously accusing me of dishonesty because I don

[Uncle Dale]

...

If the plates came from there, they must have gone in there right?

...

Why on earth say such a thing?

IF there is a Hill Cumorah in Guatemala, why couldn't the plates have

been buried there?

Just because they were found in New York, does not mean anybody traveled

to New York just to re-bury them in that remote spot, unknown to Nephites.

The brother of Jared reportedly could move entire mountains, simply by

an exercise of faith -- and he had not yet become celestialized.

Why couldn't the Angel have moved the plates to New York in the early

1820s, from Guatemala -- purely as an exercise of faith?

Is that not the means the Angel used to remove the plates from Smith?

UD

[beastie]

You forgot to widen your eyes and raise your eyebrows innocently while asking that question.

The Joseph Smith history makes it clear that he obtained the plates from the hill in Western New York.

It has been the traditional belief that that was the location, as you know perfectly well. If the plates came from there, they must have gone in there right?

The church takes no official position. That means that either position, or even a third or fourteenth could be correct. No official position is no official position.

And yet the church writes manuals and references, which take a position on matters like this and on evolution, and on Blacks and the Priesthood, which occasionally need to be altered.

I know this is all a new idea to you, and you are not aware of any of this, since you are so confused by my response, and you are so new to all of this and unaware of the issues.

But to say that the FP is intentionally "misleading" people by allowing a traditional position to be published is just bunk and you know it.

Are they supposed to revise the manual taking into account every possible theory which might be dreamed up in the future? All 14 (say) of them, and discuss each one which has yet to be published? Give me a break!

I still cannot fathom your motivation here, if it is not to convince others of your "cause". What is the purpose of the "other board" if not to do so? Misery loves company? Is that the purpose?

No one here thinks this amounts to anything. If you are not trying to convince us, why are you wasting your time? How many hours have you spent here over the last week? For what

Note I

[mfbukowski]

Why on earth say such a thing?

IF there is a Hill Cumorah in Guatemala, why couldn't the plates have

been buried there?

Just because they were found in New York, does not mean anybody traveled

to New York just to re-bury them in that remote spot, unknown to Nephites.

The brother of Jared reportedly could move entire mountains, simply by

an exercise of faith -- and he had not yet become celestialized.

Why couldn't the Angel have moved the plates to New York in the early

1820s, from Guatemala -- purely as an exercise of faith?

Is that not the means the Angel used to remove the plates from Smith?

UD

I need to clarify that. I am not advocating that position, and I agree with you.

My purpose was to draw the "natural conclusion" to which one might come if one simply read the Joseph Smith History and was unaware of any further scholarship on the issue. I was illustrating how those think who accept the tradtitional view. I probably should have said "Those who accept this view would think..." etc.

My point is simply that there are two views now, and could be others in the future. Having a manual state the traditional view is not unexpected; yet subsequent statements have said that the church takes no position.

The traditional view is not EXCLUDED by taking "no position" and it is dishonest to state that it IS excluded. And stating that the church is "misleading" people because a manual HAS stated a position which is NOT EXCLUDED is just a lie. Taking a position which is not excluded is not in any way "misleading" Period.

Technically speaking, the Watson letter does not even state that the Western New York hill IS the only Cumorah. It does not even say that the Western New York hill IS Cumorah. What it actually says is that the church has "LONG MAINTAINED" that the hill is the same as the one in the BOM, which statement may or may not be correct. (ie: Has 'the church' long maintained it or not? Are individuals in the church, "the church"?)

It appears to me that it is not correct, if "the church" has not taken a stand either way.

But the "controversy" is silly anyway, and is of no doctrinal importance whatsoever. Joseph received the plates, and gave the plates up, and translated them by inspiration.

That is all that matters, and that is quite controversial enough, as has been shown by volumes written for and against both sides.

But whether a secretary phrased some private communication correctly enough to stand as "doctrine" for which he or she was not responsible to communicate any way is a non- issue.

And I for one am about done with this.

[beastie]

My point is simply that there are two views now, and could be others in the future. Having a manual state the traditional view is not unexpected; yet subsequent statements have said that the church takes no position.

The traditional view is not EXCLUDED by taking "no position" and it is dishonest to state that it IS excluded. And stating that the church is "misleading" people because a manual HAS stated a position which is NOT EXCLUDED is just a lie. Taking a position which is not excluded is not in any way "misleading" Period.

What the

[mfbukowski]

Note I

[mfbukowski]

What the

[beastie]

The disclaimers have already been shown.

And where exactly did "the church" take a position? In the study guide? It taught a possible view which in fact could be doctrinal, IF it "took a position" which it hasn't.

Honestly, can't you see the difference??

The scripture guide did not offer the small hill in western NY as simply one possibility

[mfbukowski]

Let

[beastie]

There has been no official editorial statement either way by the real editor.

Perhaps this line is the clue to our inability to communicate. Are you saying that you do not accept the Watson or Ogden correspondences as conveying the wishes of the FP?

Are you saying that you view the Watson/Ogden correspondences as conveying nothing more than the opinions of Watson and Ogden?

[dblagent007]

I mentioned this much earlier in this thread, but I think it may have been overlooked. Alan Miner wrote a piece entitled "Chronology of LDS Thought on Book of Mormon Geography" (a very interesting read in and of itself). It can be found here: http://www.bmaf.org/node/182#_ednref16

He provided the following account of the incident in question:

In the year 1990 in response to a question about the location of the Hill Cumorah, the following response was sent from the Office of the First Presidency: "The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon."[xv] Yet in 1993, when the Limited Mesoamerican scholars at FARMS complained about this statement, they were sent the following FAX:

"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 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 that has been suggested.[xvi]

[xvi]. F. Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency, FAX from the Office of the First Presidency to FARMS, 23 April 1993.

(emphasis added)

Note that this clearly refers to the Ogden fax, but was misattributed to Watson - the exact same thing Hamblin did in his original article.

This account is entirely consistent with the theory that Hamblin/Peterson are misremembering (the nice interpretation) and contradictory of the earlier uber source text theory they have concocted.

[beastie]

Thank you, 007. I had overlooked that, and I agree it provides more support for the speculation that the fax was always the source for these printed references, and Hamblin/Peterson have simply misremembered. It's no great sin, although some here act as if that suggestion is akin to blasphemy.

Oh, wait, I forgot, I have to quote your post so everyone knows what this post is about:

007

Note that this clearly refers to the Ogden fax, but was misattributed to Watson - the exact same thing Hamblin did in his original article.

This account is entirely consistent with the theory that Hamblin/Peterson are misremembering (the nice interpretation) and contradictory of the earlier uber source text theory they have concocted.

Whew, so glad I remembered to quote you. Don't want to be accused of dishonesty again.

[gtaggart]

Thank you, 007. I had overlooked that, and I agree it provides more support for the speculation that the fax was always the source for these printed references, and Hamblin/Peterson have simply misremembered. It's no great sin, although some here act as if that suggestion is akin to blasphemy.

Oh, wait, I forgot, I have to quote your post so everyone knows what this post is about:

007

Whew, so glad I remembered to quote you. Don't want to be accused of dishonesty again.

Imagine that, in just seven words, you've captured the essence of the 36 pages of this thread--minus, of course, DCP's repeated assertions--and Hamblin's as well--that he/they/and others saw and were referring to a letter on First Presidency letterhead over the signature of Michael Watson. Except for that.

[Uncle Dale]

...

the fax was always the source for these printed references

...

OK -- you've finally convinced me.

If there was a "pre-1985 letter," it must have said essentially the

same thing as the fax. If it did not say essentially the same thing,

we'll never know anyway -- so no sense worrying about that.

Unless some of the other six parties involved come forward, with

some new information regarding a "pre-1985 letter" they distinctly

recall having seen, I think that the letter can be forgotten.

At this point, it does not matter whether such a "lost" document

ever existed or not.

So, repeating myself for the third time, Case Closed.

UD

[Mortal Man]

I can't believe this thread moved so far over Christmas; didn't any of you get any presents?

I actually did call the Office of the First Presidency

Nice.

This, my friends, is why Dan gets paid the ??????? ???????.

"I published the letter in 1993. However, I received it while still in graduate school =before 1985."

Yikes!

Dan, I know you've got your heart set on reaching the Earth's mantle, but you just can't survive down there. When Bill hands you an anvil, don't wear it for a necklace, just let it go. And where the heck is Bill anyway? This is really all his mess, not yours. Can't he get to MADB from Cordoba?

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.

For what it's worth, I have no doubts whatsoever about your or Bill Hamblin's integrity.

I contacted the Office of the First Presidency, and asked them whether they could locate a 1993 letter from Michael Watson to you. They have computerized records going back to 1987. They could not locate such a letter.

This leaves you and Bill open to accusations that once Bill knew the earliest date of the records (from your email), he would simply say that he obtained the letter prior to that time.

Yup.

I rather think this whole thing is reaching the point of diminishing returns. Or, rather, that it reached that point several years ago. I'm disinclined to expend much more effort on it.

...those are really, beyond reasonable debate, extraordinarily minor and tangential issues.

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

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).

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

...

And, to me, it doesn't much matter anyway... It will make no substantive difference whatever.

I'm sorry Dan, but my years of "nit-picky devotion" to your "every word", have taught me that your interest in a subject is inversely proportional to your declarations of disinterest. I've also learned that, when you sense growing danger, your gut reaction is to avow that you "don't really much care" about the issue anymore.

Don't worry though, I'm still cheering for your side.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, certainly it

[rockslider]

Why are you so interested? It may be obvious, but I'll endeavor to answer; you may confirm or deny as you see fit.

You and other hostile critics are desperate to find a means -- any means -- for discrediting the Book of Mormon, in this case that being the viability of traditional assumptions regarding its specific geography. Your attacks are cut off at the knees, though, by official or quasi-official statements to the effect that the Church emphasizes the power and divinity of the book, not its geography, and it takes no position regarding any theory pertaining to the same. Members are thus free not to bind themselves to beliefs you regard as damning. This must be frustrating to you.

So you go on and on about minutia, such as whether or not a brief concordance entry reflects the official positon of the Church. You resist reasonable responses. At some point, your incessant arguing begins to seem more like carping than intelligent discourse.

Your underlying motivation being what I suspect it is, why should faithful Latter-day Saints care in the least what you think about such matters as the Church's procedure in revising its scriptural study aids? Understandably, some grow bored with the whole discussion. I imagine that's why DCP, and possibly others, have lost interest in this thread, and why I am on the verge of doing so myself.

It did not seem to me that it was the BoM that was the focus of discredit here.

[Calm]

It did not seem to me that it was the BoM that was the focus of discredit here.

I agree that the focus appears to be (at least since beastie began to post) the relationship between Church leaders and LDS scholars (though most often they are defined as apologists in this thread at least) and the supposedly callous neglect of the Brethren of the so-called "folk mormons". This is more along the line of trying to sustain the fallacious internet/chapel dichotomy with its (impending? imploding?---take your pick) schism in the Church and goes along quite nicely with the latest rumour from the rumour mill of Dan's stalker with its various factions in church leadership and elsewhere plotting against each other.

However, it amounts to the same thing in the end--discrediting the role of revelation in the Church, whether through promoting the belief that the BoM is a fraud or supposedly demonstrating that the Church is ultimately led by public or apologetic opinion, not revelation from the Lord.

[rockslider]

... demonstrating that the Church is ultimately led by public or apologetic opinion, not revelation from the Lord.

There does seem to be plenty of other "changes" during the periods of time covered in this thread, that would fuel this same question.

[beastie]

OK -- you've finally convinced me.

If there was a "pre-1985 letter," it must have said essentially the

same thing as the fax. If it did not say essentially the same thing,

we'll never know anyway -- so no sense worrying about that.

Unless some of the other six parties involved come forward, with

some new information regarding a "pre-1985 letter" they distinctly

recall having seen, I think that the letter can be forgotten.

At this point, it does not matter whether such a "lost" document

ever existed or not.

So, repeating myself for the third time, Case Closed.

I agree with this summary.

But I suspect that believers will not be satisfied with this summary. For whatever reason, many believers on this thread seem to think that DCP

[beastie]

Why are you so interested? It may be obvious, but I'll endeavor to answer; you may confirm or deny as you see fit.

You and other hostile critics are desperate to find a means -- any means -- for discrediting the Book of Mormon, in this case that being the viability of traditional assumptions regarding its specific geography. Your attacks are cut off at the knees, though, by official or quasi-official statements to the effect that the Church emphasizes the power and divinity of the book, not its geography, and it takes no position regarding any theory pertaining to the same. Members are thus free not to bind themselves to beliefs you regard as damning. This must be frustrating to you.

So you go on and on about minutia, such as whether or not a brief concordance entry reflects the official positon of the Church. You resist reasonable responses. At some point, your incessant arguing begins to seem more like carping than intelligent discourse.

Your underlying motivation being what I suspect it is, why should faithful Latter-day Saints care in the least what you think about such matters as the Church's procedure in revising its scriptural study aids? Understandably, some grow bored with the whole discussion. I imagine that's why DCP, and possibly others, have lost interest in this thread, and why I am on the verge of doing so myself.

You are incorrect. I

[beastie]

I agree that the focus appears to be (at least since beastie began to post) the relationship between Church leaders and LDS scholars (though most often they are defined as apologists in this thread at least) and the supposedly callous neglect of the Brethren of the so-called "folk mormons". This is more along the line of trying to sustain the fallacious internet/chapel dichotomy with its (impending? imploding?---take your pick) schism in the Church and goes along quite nicely with the latest rumour from the rumour mill of Dan's stalker with its various factions in church leadership and elsewhere plotting against each other.

However, it amounts to the same thing in the end--discrediting the role of revelation in the Church, whether through promoting the belief that the BoM is a fraud or supposedly demonstrating that the Church is ultimately led by public or apologetic opinion, not revelation from the Lord.

(this response is not meant solely for cal

[indy_jh]

[rockslider]

beastie,

well said.

If there is bitterness in you, you have shown great control in your written words in this thread. In contrast to others, you have stuck to an intellectual debate and presented your thoughts clearly, without the need for any negative aspects of typical apologetic debate.