In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[DanGB]

""The Church has not taken an official position with regard to location of geographical places [of the Book of Mormon." John E. Clark, "Book of Mormon Geography," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:178

Is this considered an "official" statement from the Church?

I was told there was a letter issued from the office of the first presidency some years ago addressing the location of Cumorah but have not seen such.

[DanGB]

But if I can return to my original question of this thread, is there any LDS scholarship specifically addressing the existence of our BOM history that generated the interest, or convinced, the academic prossionals in this relate area of study?

????

[Kevin Christensen]

Is this considered an "official" statement from the Church?

I was told there was a letter issued from the office of the first presidency some years ago addressing the location of Cumorah but have not seen such.

The Encyclopedia was done with the cooperation of the church. And the author and editors of that article support their statements with offical statements. The offical position on geography is, no offical position. The reasons given in the early official statements (which you can read on the FAIR wiki and elsewhere), were that there had been no revelation on the topic, and that no one had done the work.

The the publication of Sorenson's Ensign articles in 1984 and of Ancient American Setting in 1985, and the increasingly close connections between FARMS and BYU are a quasi-official acknowledgement that if no one yet has received official revelation, the authors associated with FARMS have at least done the requisite work.

There was a letter from Michael Watson from the Office of the First Presidency which the 1993 letter from Watson hat William Hamblin cited in his JBMS 2/1 essay, which you have seen, corrects.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[DanGB]

The the publication of Sorenson's Ensign articles in 1984 and of Ancient American Setting in 1985, and the increasingly close connections between FARMS and BYU are a quasi-official acknowledgement that if no one yet has received official revelation, the authors associated with FARMS have at least done the requisite work.

There was a letter from Michael Watson from the Office of the First Presidency which the 1993 letter from Watson hat William Hamblin cited in his JBMS 2/1 essay, which you have seen, corrects.

What does "quasi official" really mean? Sounds more like "I want it to be official" for this discussion!

Can you or anyone here provide a copiy of this letter(s) from Watson/Church for one to read and evaluate?

[DanGB]

After a bit of bulldogging, here is a copy or text of a supposed letter from the First Presidency's Office:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Office of the First Presidency

Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

October 16, 1990

Bishop Darrel L. Brooks

Moore Ward

Oklahoma City Oklahoma South Stake

1000 Windemere

Moore, OK 73160

Dear Bishop Brooks:

[Kevin Christensen]

After a bit of bulldogging, here is a copy or text of a supposed letter from the First Presidency's Office:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Office of the First Presidency

Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

October 16, 1990

Bishop Darrel L. Brooks

Moore Ward

Oklahoma City Oklahoma South Stake

While I cannot provide anything more than what I got, is anyone here aware of this letter and is it legitimate? If so, it seems fairly clear and straightforward. Am I missing something or is this a total hoax?

It is an Oct. 16 1990 letter that Michael Watson wrote, but if you will notice Hamblin's article quotes a subsequent April 23 1993 letter from Michael Watson that "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 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."

Of course, neither letter is revelation, but respresent correspondence with a church employee at specific times, offering his perspectives at those times. It is not the last word on the subject.

Kevin Christensen

[DanGB]

Assuming that the letter above from the office of the first presidency is real, can anyone provide a copy or reference to the other letter that Kevin refers to?

Also this statement: "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 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."

seems totally exclusive from the letter above. My point is that the second statement does not correct nor refute the 1990 letter from the first presidency. This seems rather easy and obvious to understand. What am I missing???I

[DanGB]

What was wrong with the question I DID ask? It was plain, simple and striaghtforward.

But I gather, from the replies here, merely asking the question here makes me an apostate and a narsicist. Better to answer the question "I should have asked" I guess!! Perhaps part of our culture!

I gather the answe is "no, our scholars have not been convincing to those outside of the Church". And that is ok. Nothing wrong with being honest factual. I was merely inquiring.

If asking the question makes me an apostate to some here then it is a problem for them. I certainly dont see that type of culture in our ward here thankfully.

Bumping for Dan Peterson!

[Kevin Christensen]

Assuming that the letter above from the office of the first presidency is real, can anyone provide a copy or reference to the other letter that Kevin refers to?

Also this statement: "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 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."

seems totally exclusive from the letter above. My point is that the second statement does not correct nor refute the 1990 letter from the first presidency. This seems rather easy and obvious to understand. What am I missing???I

How about this for a reference for both Watson letters and a straight forward discussion of their implications:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements/First_Presidency_Letter

By the way, did you notice that Daniel Peterson previously bumped my earlier response to your request for non-LDS scholars impressed by Book of Mormon scholarship for your notice. You have not commented on what I offered on that topic. Why not?

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Cold Steel]

There's a vast amount of material available here, accompanied by references to yet further material.

This link doesn't seem to be working. Can you repost?

[Daniel Peterson]

I merely asked a question of who the intended audience of his essay was. If you know, I would be interested in a direct reply w/o all the drama.

You create the "drama." I cited an article in response to one of the issues you raised. You have, as you continue to do below, absolutely missed the point of the article and concentrated, instead, on the personality of its author and your perception of an element in its tone. This is utterly irrelevant, both to the content of the article and to the issue that you raised and to which I was responding.

Maybe I can put it in this perspective: How much credibility would you garner in all your attempts to explain and bridge build the concept of Islam and Muslims if the title of you speeches and essays invoked "anti-Muslim " in the title or pre-amble? Have you ever included such in your Muslim speeches or publications? How much real credibility would you expect to gain from doing so? With respect to the Hamblin article, I doubt it gains little exposure outside or the BYU campus or fellow professors. No one here in our ward had seen nor heard of it after a quick circulation.

What does any of that have to do with the subject?

One respond I did receive was that he was incorrect on Church statements. I was told that the Church actually supported a NY location of Hill Cumorah thus giving some light to the geography of the BOM history. (I suspect iwill be called to provide reference which I cannot and don't yet know the validity of this info.)

Yes, I would expect an actual reference. I would have to see what, if anything, was really said.

If you have an official, authoritative statement from the Church declaring as doctrine that the New York drumlin is the site of the final Jaredite and Nephite battles, you will absolutely revolutionize studies of Book of Mormon geography.

[dblagent007]

Assuming that the letter above from the office of the first presidency is real, can anyone provide a copy or reference to the other letter that Kevin refers to?

DanGB, oh man, you have stepped into a huge pile of stuff by asking that question. The existence of the second Watson letter has been debated almost without end in other corners of the Internet. It's sort of like Bigfoot - a lot of legend, but not much evidence (for the record, I believe it once existed).

[Daniel Peterson]

DanGB, oh man, you have stepped into a huge pile of stuff by asking that question. The existence of the second Watson letter has been debated almost without end in other corners of the Internet. It's sort of like Bigfoot - a lot of legend, but not much evidence (for the record, I believe it once existed).

Which, being interpreted, means that there are two or three implacable critics out there who have repeatedly insinuated that Bill Hamblin and I forged it.

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.

The insinuation continues to be repeated from time to time, but, so far as I'm aware, nobody has alerted the Office of the First Presidency to our supposed act of brazen fraud.

[DanGB]

A few questions: Is the text of the letter, from the Office of the First Presidency to Brother Brooks a hoax or for real?

If it is real, has it been formally withdrawn?

How does the statement in the Hamblin article change what is stated in the letter to Brother Brooks?

The two statements are mutually exclusive if one can read plain English.

What is missing here?

[Daniel Peterson]

A few questions: Is the text of the letter, from the Office of the First Presidency to Brother Brooks a hoax or for real?

I assume it's real, but have no real evidence one way or the other.

If it is real, has it been formally withdrawn?

I don't know that a letter to a private individual needs to be "formally withdrawn." Perhaps it could be "formally withdrawn" from that private individual, but I see no reason to expect that a private letter be publicly repudiated.

How does the statement in the Hamblin article change what is stated in the letter to Brother Brooks?

I think the declaration that "there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site" substantially undercuts any attempt to view the previous letter as announcing a conclusive connection between the Book of Mormon text and the specific glacial drumlin adjacent to Palmyra, New York.

The two statements are mutually exclusive if one can read plain English.

See above.

What is missing here?

See above.

[DanGB]

I don't know that a letter to a private individual needs to be "formally withdrawn." Perhaps it could be "formally withdrawn" from that private individual, but I see no reason to expect that a private letter be publicly repudiated.

The letter to Brooks, assuming it is true, is very clear that it is responding to a direct question to President Hinckley and the answer is being given by the Church as to what the "Church's" longstanding position is with respect to the location of the BOM Hill Cumorah. Secretary Watson is clearly not giving "his" personal opinion. I can't see how anyone wouldn't be able to read what is said, the background and context of the request and not see and conclude that that the "longstanding position" is the of the "Church's" and not the personal conclusion of the Secretary to the Office of the First Presidency. It's very clear and a very easy read!!!

I think the declaration that "there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site" substantially undercuts any attempt to view the previous letter as announcing a conclusive connection between the Book of Mormon text and the specific glacial drumlin adjacent to Palmyra, New York.

I think you are trying to tie together two disctinct and separate issues here that are obviously mutually exclusive. All one needs to do is add the statement from the Hamblin article to the original letter from the First Presidency Office. It would then merely say, in summary, " here is our longstanding position on the location of Cumorah, we just don't have any physical evidenence yet to support it".

But I see nothing in the Hamblin essay to change the longstanding position of the Church as stated in the First Presidency letter to Brooks.

See above.

See above.

[Daniel Peterson]

I disagree.

I also have to catch a plane to Australia.

[DanGB]

I disagree.

But why?

It's a fairly easy and straightforward read if you read what is actually printed as opposed to what I see as what some "want" it to say!

(Have a good trip and avoid those night club hosts that did Tiger in down there!!)

[Anijen]

But why?

It's a fairly easy and straightforward read if you read what is actually printed as opposed to what I see as what some "want" it to say!

(Have a good trip and avoid those night club hosts that did Tiger in down there!!)

It is plainly just as obvious that the first letter (by Brother Watson) was premature and the second(by Brother Watson) was a clarification.

You are trying really hard to make the first letter official doctrine when it is not, the latter statment by Brother Watson actually clears that up.

There is no official doctrine on the geography which includes the Hill Cumorah in New York the Hill Cumorah in Mesoamerica and any other Hill in any other location...

[DanGB]

It is plainly just as obvious that the first letter (by Brother Watson) was premature and the second(by Brother Watson) was a clarification.

Why? I don't see the validity of your statement. Haven't seen any second letter either so hard to reach your conclusion.

You are trying really hard to make the first letter official doctrine when it is not, the latter statment by Brother Watson actually clears that up.

I am just letting the first letter, if in fact a true letter, speak for itslef and the obvious englsh translation of it!

There is no official doctrine on the geography which includes the Hill Cumorah in New York the Hill Cumorah in Mesoamerica and any other Hill in any other location...

Well obviously, as the letter is very clear on, that's not what the bretheren communicated to Bro. Brooks!

[mfbukowski]

Since when does a secretary make doctrine? It doesn't matter if the poor man wrote two or seventeen letters. He was doing the best he could, but I bet that had he known what would come of this simple letter, he would never have written either one.

[DanGB]

Since when does a secretary make doctrine? It doesn't matter if the poor man wrote two or seventeen letters. He was doing the best he could, but I bet that had he known what would come of this simple letter, he would never have written either one.

I don't think he, nor the letter created doctrine. I don't think doctrine or revelation will change history or geography! Frankly, I hope we don't get to a point where we ask our children and students to "pray about history" as they prepare for tests! I hope we ask them to rely on accepted scholarship!

But the letter is very clear that he is merely communicating "the longstanding position of the Church". Nothing more. Why is this so difficult for some to see after a reading of the letter? Basic English here as far as I, and members of our ward see it!

[volgadon]

I don't think he, nor the letter created doctrine. I don't think doctrine or revelation will change history or geography! Frankly, I hope we don't get to a point where we ask our children and students to "pray about history" as they prepare for tests! I hope we ask them to rely on accepted scholarship!

But the letter is very clear that he is merely communicating "the longstanding position of the Church". Nothing more. Why is this so difficult for some to see after a reading of the letter? Basic English here as far as I, and members of our ward see it!

I hope I never ask my children (when I have them) to rely on accepted scholarship. I hope I teach them how to analyse historical problems themselves and how to utilise accepted scholarship, not rely on it.

[DanGB]

I hope I never ask my children (when I have them) to rely on accepted scholarship. I hope I teach them how to analyse historical problems themselves and how to utilise accepted scholarship, not rely on it.

I could agree with that as well. I think were on the same page.

[mfbukowski]

I could agree with that as well. I think were on the same page.

Well that is crucial.

If that is the case, why this reliance on "convincing LDS scholarship"?

Between you and me, (whispering) I think most scholars say what they say because it is politically correct in their particular departments.

That is why I gave up academia, and why frankly, I don't put much trust in it.

The good thing about it is that it is important to society that you have some people who can do this stuff all day long and get paid for doing it. That's a good thing. But you have to take everything they say with a "grain of salt" anyway.