In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[mfbukowski]

I made the comment because it seemed to me that mfbukowski was implying that someone (not sure who) stated that the Watson letter was making doctrine.

Welcome.

The critics have absolutely no case if they acknowledge that these were not doctrinal statements. What are they griping about if the statements are not to be taken seriously?

[Malc]

Welcome.

The critics have absolutely no case if they acknowledge that these were not doctrinal statements. What are they griping about if the statements are not to be taken seriously?

Thanks. I'm definitely "lightweight" in this world of Mormon discussions, but, as a non-believing member in a mostly believing family, I am interested in what goes on.

I do believe, though, that there is a big difference between "not doctrinal" and "not to be taken seriously". And I think that a lot of statements by LDS authorities of various sorts likely fall into the same category.

[Calm]

OK, I am catching up. I suppose I should read the whole thing before responding, but this is moving so fast, it seems you are always at least 2 pages ahead of my anyway. You could have already resolved everything and signed a peace treaty by the time I get to where you are. But I will keep on sniping in the foxholes and caves until I see it for myself.

That's because you have a life and other things to do today besides babysitting me as beastie was kind enough to do (edit to remove possible implication that beastie doesn't have a life).

Anyway, now I know the quote, thank you all, but I think that Scott's choice of words might not have been the best in that one line taken out of context, but I think his intent was to in fact provide a more descriptive dichotomy than the internet-chapel ridiculousness which has been perpetuated.

Maybe he could have chosen less inflammatory words, but all he is doing is exploring another way of defining the difference.

But this is a digression on top of a digression. So now are we discussing Scott's thead?

Who knows what may develop next? Endless rabbit holes are possibly when I'm involved.

[Calm]

I do believe, though, that there is a big difference between "not doctrinal" and "not to be taken seriously". And I think that a lot of statements by LDS authorities of various sorts likely fall into the same category.

And that leads to a discussion that is a massive one that impinges on probably every issue that exists in the apologetic/polemic/critical/scholarly community (or if you prefer to make a distinction: "communities".)

[Malc]

And that leads to a discussion that is a massive one that impinges on probably every issue that exists in the apologetic/polemic/critical/scholarly community (or if you prefer to make a distinction: "communities".)

It may not be quite the same discussion, but I think it is related to the difference between "speaking as a prophet" and "speaking as a man". Anyway, I don't want to derail the discussion too much, so I'll go back to lurk mode.

[beastie]

What do they refer to?

First, in case anyone hasn

[beastie]

Welcome.

The critics have absolutely no case if they acknowledge that these were not doctrinal statements. What are they griping about if the statements are not to be taken seriously?

I can't speak for all critics, but simply because a teaching isn't formalized as doctrine doesn't mean it's not to be taken seriously. As I mentioned in another response, it can be very difficult to nail down doctrine in the first place, so it seems more useful to talk about LDS teachings rather than "doctrine", and some teachings have more authority than others, depending on the source.

[beastie]

That's because you have a life and other things to do today besides babysitting me as beastie was kind enough to do (edit to remove possible implication that beastie doesn't have a life).Who knows what may develop next? Endless rabbit holes are possibly when I'm involved.

That's ok, I freely admit I haven't had much of a life this week outside of the holiday due to being inconviently snowed in. I didn't leave my house for five days and was going stir crazy.

[Malc]

I can't speak for all critics, but simply because a teaching isn't formalized as doctrine doesn't mean it's not to be taken seriously. As I mentioned in another response, it can be very difficult to nail down doctrine in the first place, so it seems more useful to talk about LDS teachings rather than "doctrine", and some teachings have more authority than others, depending on the source.

Pity that we cannot get a generally accepted "authority index" attached to a statement at the time it is made.

Of course, if we did there might be a lot less to discuss.

It might not be too much of an exaggeration to suggest that much of the disagreement between apologists and critics is over the (retrospectively assigned) authority indexes [indices, if you prefer] of various statements.

[Definitely OT: I wonder how various authorities would react to the assignment of an index to their statements (;=) ]

[mfbukowski]

It may not be quite the same discussion, but I think it is related to the difference between "speaking as a prophet" and "speaking as a man". Anyway, I don't want to derail the discussion too much, so I'll go back to lurk mode.

I agree totally that this is the issue. But then there would be no thread, because that is old news that goes back to at least Brigham Young.

There are all kinds of "non-doctrinal" statements made throughout history and we have been over those ad nauseum. But the fact that someone thinks that secretaries of the first presidency make doctrine in private letters, I suppose we will have to discuss how wrong they are.

[beastie]

Pity that we cannot get a generally accepted "authority index" attached to a statement at the time it is made.

Of course, if we did there might be a lot less to discuss.

It might not be too much of an exaggeration to suggest that much of the disagreement between apologists and critics is over the (retrospectively assigned) authority indexes [indices, if you prefer] of various statements.

[Definitely OT: I wonder how various authorities would react to the assignment of an index to their statements (;=) ]

Heh. Good idea, but I can imagine the battles that would ensue amongs the brethren. I certainly wouldn't want the job of informing Packer he was rated anything less that top of the scale.

In practical terms, that is terms of what LDS tend to believe and what leaders tend to teach, I think that the insistence on what is and isn't clear doctrine isn't very pertinent. It only seems to be an issue in these sort of discussions.

As I said earlier, I think the best way to ascertain what leaders likely want members to believe is by looking at the material they sanction and approve, particularly for teaching purposes.

[beastie]

I agree totally that this is the issue. But then there would be no thread, because that is old news that goes back to at least Brigham Young.

There are all kinds of "non-doctrinal" statements made throughout history and we have been over those ad nauseum. But the fact that someone thinks that secretaries of the first presidency make doctrine in private letters, I suppose we will have to discuss how wrong they are.

I actually don't think that it's the critics who are asserting that secretaries are making doctrine. I think the apologists who insist that Watson's second letter (aka the Ogden fax) is clarifying what is doctrine could be perceived as making that argument. Clearly some posters here think that the Ogden fax ought to trump what is contained in the scripture study guide, and I don't agree with that at all.

[Malc]

I agree totally that this is the issue. But then there would be no thread, because that is old news that goes back to at least Brigham Young.

There are all kinds of "non-doctrinal" statements made throughout history and we have been over those ad nauseum. But the fact that someone thinks that secretaries of the first presidency make doctrine in private letters, I suppose we will have to discuss how wrong they are.

Could you pls point me to the place where "someone thinks that secretaries of the first presidency make doctrine in private letters" - as distinct from confirming doctrine already "made" - I haven't been able to find it.

[mfbukowski]

I can't speak for all critics, but simply because a teaching isn't formalized as doctrine doesn't mean it's not to be taken seriously. As I mentioned in another response, it can be very difficult to nail down doctrine in the first place, so it seems more useful to talk about LDS teachings rather than "doctrine", and some teachings have more authority than others, depending on the source.

Ok. I am not a detail guy. I am not a scholar by any means whatsoever. My education is in philosophy, my desk is a mess and the little stuff just is not important to me. My personality is the typical "absent minded professor" (though I am not one) and mostly all I think about is big issues about the universe, mind-body problem, the nature of language etc. I am not saying that is good or bad, in fact I wish I could be more detail oriented- my life would be easier. I typically don't care about line 14 of what some academic hack said about Milton or whoever unless it is directly related to an issue which I think is important. Pardon the personal digression, but I am making it for a reason.

I am honestly trying to weed through all these references which you have provided, (and incidentally, I really DO appreciate having them all together in one spot)-- dare I say it? BUT

Would you please do me a favor, and summarize your central core argument in as few words as possible, without any personalities or accusations of nuanced emotion included?

Let me try doing it for you, so that you can correct me.

beastie might be saying:

"The first presidency is being dishonest by publicly advocating a one Cumorah doctrine, and yet responding to scholars ambiguously and allowing them to pursue a two-Cumorah position, which is bad because..."

I am sorry for being such a ditz, but honestly I know you are very intelligent, but I cannot see anything here at all.

The EoM citation is not relevant, as far as I can see. It is not doctrine.

The Watson and Ogden communications are not relelvant, they are not doctrine.

What DCP and or/Hamblin have said are also not doctrine.

It appears that you are stating that there is a conflict in doctrine, otherwise there is no reason to attack "the church" or the FP.

I can see none. I guess either I am very stupid and just not seeing it, or there is nothing to see.

Please put me in my place and show me how I am wrong.

[mfbukowski]

Could you pls point me to the place where "someone thinks that secretaries of the first presidency make doctrine in private letters" - as distinct from confirming doctrine already "made" - I haven't been able to find it.

It hasn't been stated.

But what else is there to criticize? Where is the problem?

I guess I am just having trouble facing that NOTHING could go on for 800 posts. There must be something to it

[beastie]

Ok. I am not a detail guy. I am not a scholar by any means whatsoever. My education is in philosophy, my desk is a mess and the little stuff just is not important to me. My personality is the typical "absent minded professor" (though I am not one) and mostly all I think about is big issues about the universe, mind-body problem, the nature of language etc. I am not saying that is good or bad, in fact I wish I could be more detail oriented- my life would be easier. I typically don't care about line 14 of what some academic hack said about Milton or whoever unless it is directly related to an issue which I think is important. Pardon the personal digression, but I am making it for a reason.

I am honestly trying to weed through all these references which you have provided, (and incidentally, I really DO appreciate having them all together in one spot)-- dare I say it? BUT

Would you please do me a favor, and summarize your central core argument in as few words as possible, without any personalities or accusations of nuanced emotion included?

Let me try doing it for you, so that you can correct me.

beastie might be saying:

"The first presidency is being dishonest by publicly advocating a one Cumorah doctrine, and yet responding to scholars ambiguously and allowing them to pursue a two-Cumorah position, which is bad because..."

I am sorry for being such a ditz, but honestly I know you are very intelligent, but I cannot see anything here at all.

The EoM citation is not relevant, as far as I can see. It is not doctrine.

The Watson and Ogden communications are not relelvant, they are not doctrine.

What DCP and or/Hamblin have said are also not doctrine.

It appears that you are stating that there is a conflict in doctrine, otherwise there is no reason to attack "the church" or the FP.

I can see none. I guess either I am very stupid and just not seeing it, or there is nothing to see.

Please put me in my place and show me how I am wrong.

BTW, I just tried the reply/quote function on my other board and was told I had embedded too many quotes. That is why I developed the habit I did of simply clicking reply at the end of the thread.

Now, to your request:

I am saying that the Watson events (by which I mean any and all correspondence that took place between Watson and/or Ogden and various parties) are of interest due to the possible window they provide into the interplay between apologists and church leaders.

I am saying that I do not have enough evidence to form a conclusive opinion on exactly what the nature of that interplay might be, but this event, along with the existence of the scripture study guide on Cumorah, suggests that apologists do have some influence on the brethren, but perhaps in a more limited fashion than I originally imagined.

I am saying that this event may provide evidence for the speculation that the brethren are aware of the dichotomy that exists in the church in regards to opinions about BoM geography, mainly the traditional model versus LGT, and that they are content to allow each side to continue as they are, and even provide information that allows each side to believe the brethren are affirming their respective positions, even if that information could easily be perceived as contradictory.

I am saying that I think it

[Malc]

It hasn't been stated.

But what else is there to criticize? Where is the problem?

I guess I am just having trouble facing that NOTHING could go on for 800 posts. There must be something to it

I don't think that it is nothing, otherwise I'm sure that you are right - the discussion would have died long ago. So we can agree that there is something to it. Actually, I even think that if the apologists would have agreed hundreds of posts ago that there is something to it, the discussion would have died. However, it would have died as a point in the favour of the critics.

I hope that someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the essence of at least one aspect of the discussion is that the Watson letter (the one that is not lost, that is), affirms a long-standing teaching of GAs that there is one Cumorah, and that it is in NY. Certain online resources within the control of the church still promote that view. This stands in opposition to the LGT and the concept of two (or more!) Cumorahs that seems to be the stance of FARMS - or at least a stance that FARMS does not want to see officially negated. If it is agreed that no-one is stating that the Watson letter made doctrine, but it is accepted that, as Watson states, it affirms doctrine, then it seems to make the FARMS folks unhappy.

Another aspect of the discussion is the influence that FARMS and other faithful scholars may or may not have on the positions taken by the prophets/apostles etc, but I think that that is a much more involved argument, so I'll leave that one for my betters to pursue.

Yet another aspect is the changing story of the 2nd Watson letter - now said to pre-date the 1st. That also I will leave to others - I think that Beastie and other critics have thoroughly documented the disturbing aspects of the unfortunate handling of references wrt the Watson/Ogden documents.

[mfbukowski]

Now, to your request:

Thanks for humoring me.

I am saying that the Watson events (by which I mean any and all correspondence that took place between Watson and/or Ogden and various parties) are of interest due to the possible window they provide into the interplay between apologists and church leaders.

Ok, I don't find them interesting, but perhaps you do. No problem.

I am saying that I do not have enough evidence to form a conclusive opinion on exactly what the nature of that interplay might be, but this event, along with the existence of the scripture study guide on Cumorah, suggests that apologists do have some influence on the brethren, but perhaps in a more limited fashion than I originally imagined.

I think this is clear from statements by Elder Ballard encouraging internet dialogue with critics. Clearly there is "some influence" though I am not sure what this might be either.

I am saying that this event may provide evidence for the speculation that the brethren are aware of the dichotomy that exists in the church in regards to opinions about BoM geography, mainly the traditional model versus LGT, and that they are content to allow each side to continue as they are,

Agreed so far,

and even provide information that allows each side to believe the brethren are affirming their respective positions, even if that information could easily be perceived as contradictory.

Disagree. I think they take "no position" and that is exactly what they mean. The disagreement appears to be about their motivation, which I think cannot be demonstrated by either side. Toss-up.

I am saying that I think it

[mfbukowski]

I don't think that it is nothing, otherwise I'm sure that you are right - the discussion would have died long ago. So we can agree that there is something to it. Actually, I even think that if the apologists would have agreed hundreds of posts ago that there is something to it, the discussion would have died. However, it would have died as a point in the favour of the critics.

I disagree, and this is not a tennis match. I am not here for "points", and if you are, well, what can I say. These are important issues to me, it is not a game.

I hope that someone will correct me if I'm wrong,

I will be glad to do so.

but I think that the essence of at least one aspect of the discussion is that the Watson letter (the one that is not lost, that is), affirms a long-standing teaching of GAs that there is one Cumorah, and that it is in NY.

Not so. The traditional belief, supported by the scriptures, not "taught by GA's" except of course insofar as they teach the scriptures, is that Moroni deposited the plates in Cumorah, and then it says in the Joseph Smith History that Joseph took the plates out of Cumorah, and it is clear that this is the hill in Western NY. The GA's have NOT "taught there is one Cumorah"-- as opposed to teaching for example that there are 2 or 79 Cumorahs, they have simple taught the scriptural traditional view, not surprisingly since that is what the scriptures say.

Certain online resources within the control of the church still promote that view

CFR that they a- are in control of the church, and b- that they promote a "one Cumorah" (as opposed to the traditional scriptural) view.

This stands in opposition to the LGT and the concept of two (or more!) Cumorahs

No it doesn't. The two Cumorah theory is not "in opposition" to the one Cumorah theory, it is a secondary theory which seeks to clarify perceived (though arguable) "inconsistencies" in the one Cumorah view. If it were "in opposition" it would say "the one Cumorah theory is wrong"- it does not. It is an alternative explanation to the one Cumorah view.

Yet another aspect is the changing story of the 2nd Watson letter - now said to pre-date the 1st. That also I will leave to others - I think that Beastie and other critics have thoroughly documented the disturbing aspects of the unfortunate handling of references wrt the Watson/Ogden documents.

It is hard to call the mis-filing of a form letter of no ultimate importance as "disturbing" or describing it as "unfortunate handling". Hamblin and DCP gave the letter the attention it was due, imo, which is not much.

[Malc]

I disagree, and this is not a tennis match. I am not here for "points", and if you are, well, what can I say. These are important issues to me, it is not a game.

Bad choice of words, with no intent to offend - agreed that this is not tennis. These issues are of more interest than importance to me, but I did not mean to imply that you or anyone else should not be serious about them.

I will be glad to do so.

Thanks.

Not so. The traditional belief, supported by the scriptures, not "taught by GA's" except of course insofar as they teach the scriptures, is that Moroni deposited the plates in Cumorah, and then it says in the Joseph Smith History that Joseph took the plates out of Cumorah, and it is clear that this is the hill in Western NY. The GA's have NOT "taught there is one Cumorah"-- as opposed to teaching for example that there are 2 or 79 Cumorahs, they have simple taught the scriptural traditional view, not surprisingly since that is what the scriptures say.

I took this:

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.

to be an indication that GAs taught something. I accept that writings are not necessarily teachings, if that is what you are saying. It would have been clearer, of course, if Bro Watson had said that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as one of the hills Cumorah referenced in the Book of Mormon. Do you think that may be what he meant to to say?

CFR that they a- are in control of the church, and b- that they promote a "one Cumorah" (as opposed to the traditional scriptural) view.

I thought that Beastie already covered this in excruciating detail. see http://www.mormonapo...__p__1208776550 as an example of a post where this is discussed. I assume that you agree that the church controls the site. If you do not agree with the plain reading of the information then we willhave to agree to disagree - at least, I agree to do so (;=).

No it doesn't. The two Cumorah theory is not "in opposition" to the one Cumorah theory, it is a secondary theory which seeks to clarify perceived (though arguable) "inconsistencies" in the one Cumorah view. If it were "in opposition" it would say "the one Cumorah theory is wrong"- it does not. It is an alternative explanation to the one Cumorah view.

Then would I be correct in saying that the FARMS view is that the one Cumorah theory is not wrong? At least, no more wrong or right than the multiple Cumorahs theory? I admit that I'm a bit fuzzy on this.

It is hard to call the mis-filing of a form letter of no ultimate importance as "disturbing" or describing it as "unfortunate handling". Hamblin and DCP gave the letter the attention it was due, imo, which is not much.

I thought that it was the handling of the references, as much as of the letter, that was seen to be - not sure what to call it, if the critics are not "disturbed" or the handling is not "unfortunate" - perhaps unusual. Even then, when the contents of the letter can generate so much controversy I would not call it "of no ultimate importance" - at least in hindsight.

Anyway, it is 1:30am in the Eastern time zone, and my bed is calling me.

Thanks for clarifying your views. As I said before, I'm a definite lightweight here, with no pretensions to represent anyone but myself, or to have any noticeable skills when it comes to argument. Thank you for being patient with me.

I also readily admit that my bias is on the critical side.

I'll look again in the morning to see if there is anything more for me to say here. Good night!

[mfbukowski]

I took this to be an indication that GAs taught something. I accept that writings are not necessarily teachings, if that is what you are saying. It would have been clearer, of course, if Bro Watson had said that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as one of the hills Cumorah referenced in the Book of Mormon. Do you think that may be what he meant to to say?

Well I am not a mind reader, and I don't have a clue what he meant to say. The point is that he was not in a position to state what doctrine was or was not. I have no idea if he was acting under authority of the FP with specific directions to answer that particular letter in that particular way. I have seen several of those letters written to bishops in my time, and they are form letters, nothing more or less. So to me, whatever he "meant" is pretty irrelevant and subject to pointless debate anyway, since who ever "won" would still have to show that the letter has the force of doctrine.

I thought that Beastie already covered this in excruciating detail. see http://www.mormonapo...__p__1208776550 as an example of a post where this is discussed. I assume that you agree that the church controls the site. If you do not agree with the plain reading of the information then we willhave to agree to disagree - at least, I agree to do so (;=).

She did, but to my knowledge, never acknowledged that that same site says this:

This dictionary has been designed to provide teachers and students with a concise collection of definitions and explanations of items that are mentioned in or are otherwise associated with the Bible. It is based primarily upon the biblical text, supplemented by information from the other books of scripture accepted as standard works by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It 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. The topics have been carefully selected and are treated briefly. If an elaborate discussion is desired, the student should consult a more exhaustive dictionary.

Then would I be correct in saying that the FARMS view is that the one Cumorah theory is not wrong? At least, no more wrong or right than the multiple Cumorahs theory? I admit that I'm a bit fuzzy on this.

I am not an authority on what FARMS does or does not say. I am stating my own opinion. Perhaps we agree perhaps we do not, I don't know. In my view, the theories don't logically conflict- the two Cumorah theory is a "patch" to the traditional view, which improves it considerably.

Even then, when the contents of the letter can generate so much controversy I would not call it "of no ultimate importance" - at least in hindsight.

This is precisely the point. Imo the amount of controversy generated by critics is much ado about nothing. And I am still waiting to be shown that it is "something".

Thanks for clarifying your views. As I said before, I'm a definite lightweight here, with no pretensions to represent anyone but myself, or to have any noticeable skills when it comes to argument. Thank you for being patient with me.

Don't sell yourself short. With a few exceptions, we're all bozos on this bus.

I also readily admit that my bias is on the critical side.

Not necessary. That was clear.

[beastie]

Disagree. I think they take "no position" and that is exactly what they mean. The disagreement appears to be about their motivation, which I think cannot be demonstrated by either side. Toss-up.

The traditional teaching of the LDS church is not only that Moroni deposited the plates in the hill in western NY from which JS obtained the plates, but also that same hill is the hill where the Nephites had their final battle and all but 24 were slain, etc etc. IOW, there is only one Hill Cumorah. Obviously this contradicts the apologists

[beastie]

Here are past teachings by GA that explicitly affirm the One Cumorah theory. I do not share these to insinuate that they are

[Malc]

I see that Beastie is up and about before me.

Since she has already dealt with most of what I would have replied on, I'll follow up on just one point.

You are willing to state your opinion on the FARMS-related issue. Perhaps you could also state your opinion on Bro Watson's actions & intentions.

Here is an expanded quote from the Watson letter:

I have been asked to forward to you for acknowledgment and handling the enclosed copy of a letter to President Gordon B. Hinckley from Ronnie Sparks of your ward. Brother Sparks inquired about the location of the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon, where the last battle between the Nephites and Lamanites took place.

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.

The Brethren appreciate your assistance in responding to this inquiry, and asked that you convey to Brother Sparks their commendation for his gospel study.

I said, referring only to the middle para:

I took this to be an indication that GAs taught something. I accept that writings are not necessarily teachings, if that is what you are saying. It would have been clearer, of course, if Bro Watson had said that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as one of the hills Cumorah referenced in the Book of Mormon. Do you think that may be what he meant to to say?

You replied:

Well I am not a mind reader, and I don't have a clue what he meant to say. The point is that he was not in a position to state what doctrine was or was not. I have no idea if he was acting under authority of the FP with specific directions to answer that particular letter in that particular way. I have seen several of those letters written to bishops in my time, and they are form letters, nothing more or less. So to me, whatever he "meant" is pretty irrelevant and subject to pointless debate anyway, since who ever "won" would still have to show that the letter has the force of doctrine.

So, without either of us claiming to be able to read his mind, what do you think that Bro Watson was doing here, bearing in mind the phrases "I have been asked to forward to you ..." and "The Brethren appreciate your assistance ..."?

1. Acting on his own, with no authority, and without an understanding of what doctrine was or was not.

2. Acting under the direction of the FP and/or Q12 and, with their agreement, restating what GAs had previously taught.

3. Something else.

In your opinion:

a. Should the position have been something more like "the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as one of the hills Cumorah referenced in the Book of Mormon"?

b. If Bro Watson, apparently acting on behalf of the brethren, is not in a position to state what doctrine was or was not, or even to restate what has been written by GAs, who is? Can no-one other than the FP/Q12 reliably restate or affirm doctrine?

c. Is the mere fact that a form letter was used sufficient to discredit the content?

d. (perhaps just a repeat of b.) Is there any point in getting clarification on any point of church teachings from anyone other than the FP/Q12 directly, since then the recipient of the information would still have to show that the clarification has the force of doctrine?

[beastie]

On the board that cannot be named, 007 shared the following link to a Dialogue article that provides some insight into the interplay between apologists and church leaders as well.

The article is by Anderson, called A History of Dialogue, from the 2002 Summer issue of Dialogue. I