In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[notHagoth7]

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....

(pssst....Your whisper carried all the way over here.)

There can be a number of advantages to being outside the constraints of any "politically correct" arena.

But even that comes w/a number of costs.

[DanGB]

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

If I used your term "accepted", would that change my point or the LDS scholarship that exists today on this specific issue?

[mfbukowski]

If I used your term "accepted", would that change my point or the LDS scholarship that exists today on this specific issue?

Not sure what you mean. I never used that word. Volgadon did.

I would just ask why is it important that it is "accepted" (regardless of what that means to you)?

If you take it all with a grain of salt anyway, why does it matter who accepts it or doesn't?

[mfbukowski]

(pssst....Your whisper carried all the way over here.)

There can be a number of advantages to being outside the constraints of any "politically correct" arena.

But even that comes w/a number of costs.

Oh, no question. Credibility is the biggest cost. Who's gonna listen to some duffer on a message board?

That is the reason I suppose the word "accepted" is important to GB.

But we really need to make our own evaluations regardless of who is speaking imo. Arguments from authority are notoriously weak.

If you believe something is true because someone told you it was, you could be in trouble. But there are many things in this age of specialization upon which we must rely on experts. But imo, religion is not one of them, and neither is history. Neither of these is at all "objective".

[volgadon]

Not sure what you mean. I never used that word. Volgadon did.

I would just ask why is it important that it is "accepted" (regardless of what that means to you)?

If you take it all with a grain of salt anyway, why does it matter who accepts it or doesn't?

Actually, I was dealing with a remark made by GB. he was the one who used the term here!!!!

[Mortal Man]

Here are the facts: Bill Hamblin wrote to the First Presidency for clarification of the earlier letter.

I did not know that and I'm pleased to hear it. I suppose I'll have to retract some of my allegations regarding usurpers and pretenders at FARMS.

This is how I see it:

1) The FAIR article is a non sequitur. The 1993 letter neither retracts nor corrects anything in the 1990 letter; it is completely orthogonal to the earlier communique. The assertion that "Bro. Watson seems to have been speaking on his own understanding" is ludicrous. When the Secretary to the First Presidency issues a statement on the official letterhead of the Office of the First Presidency, in which he plainly states "The Church has long maintained," (not "I have long maintained"), he is clearly speaking for the First Presidency, as he is duly authorized to do. The contention that this was a private letter, and hence does not reflect an official church teaching, is highly problematic since it imputes duplicity to the First Presidency.

2) It confuses church members when esteemed academicians at FAIR and/or FARMS issue corrections/clarifications to First Presidency statements; only the First Presidency can correct their own statements. It's not helpful to have hundreds of Hiram Pages running amok with their intellectual seer stones, as it were.

3) I'll bet if you posed the question, "Where is the Hill Cumorah spoken of in the Book of Mormon?" to a random sample of sacrament meeting attendees, >90% of the responses would be, "New York." Seventy-five years of BoM pageants on the hill have reinforced this perception.

4) The whole controversy could go away tomorrow if the First Presidency would simply issue a formal corrigendum, like Bruce R. McConkie did with his statements on blacks and the priesthood. Well, okay, the controversy wouldn't go away but at least the apologists would have something substantial to point to.

[mfbukowski]

Actually, I was dealing with a remark made by GB. he was the one who used the term here!!!!

Very strange. I was going by this:

If I used your term "accepted", would that change my point or the LDS scholarship that exists today on this specific issue?

Puzzling at best!

[Dale]

I see a need for more precise answers to historicity issues. What is needed is a collection of essays tackling top Book of Mormon historicity issues. Signature books has been better at creating skeptics because of volumes that get tough historicity issues out.

[mfbukowski]

The assertion that "Bro. Watson seems to have been speaking on his own understanding" is ludicrous. When the Secretary to the First Presidency issues a statement on the official letterhead of the Office of the First Presidency, in which he plainly states "The Church has long maintained," (not "I have long maintained"), he is clearly speaking for the First Presidency, as he is duly authorized to do. The contention that this was a private letter, and hence does not reflect an official church teaching, is highly problematic since it imputes duplicity to the First Presidency.

I think you have a hard case to prove here.

There is a young man in my ward who is mentally handicapped and who used to write nearly monthly to a member of the first presidency or the seventies, asking questions. He would always get a response, not unlike the one in question here. He had quite a collection. They were virtually form letters, though they had personal signatures of one secretary or another, and were all on letterhead.

There is no doubt in my mind that no one in the first presidency was even aware that the questioning letter arrived or was responded to. Obviously in a sense the secretary was "authorized" to write letters in response to the hundreds or thousands of letters like this one they received, but to think that his writings constituted a "statement of the first presidency" is clearly a very very long stretch.

Of course now the policy has been changed due to the volume or letters the GA's received; now such questions are forwarded back to the bishop of the individual who sent the letter in the first place.

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course now the policy has been changed due to the volume or letters the GA's received; now such questions are forwarded back to the bishop of the individual who sent the letter in the first place.

That was the policy in this instance as well. The first letter from Brother Watson was written to the bishop of the man who wrote to the First Presidency. The comments were apparently intended to aid the bishop in answering the man's question. It was thus an in-house communication never intended to be a public statement of doctrine.

My opinion after reading the text of both Watson letters is that the first was written as a perfunctory matter based on what Brother Watson knew to be the traditionally held belief and what he assumed to be the position of the Church. I believe that, before writing the second letter, he actually took the trouble to consult with the Brethren, whereupon he learned that there is no official Church position regarding specific Book of Mormon geography. His letter to Bill Hamblin reflected that fact, and it was thus a more accurate rendition of reality.

[notHagoth7]

I see a need for more precise answers to historicity issues. What is needed is a collection of essays tackling top Book of Mormon historicity issues. Signature books has been better at creating skeptics because of volumes that get tough historicity issues out.

What, in your opinion, are the key issues about historicity?

What are the questions that need "more precise answers"?

[SlackTime]

I see a need for more precise answers to historicity issues. What is needed is a collection of essays tackling top Book of Mormon historicity issues. Signature books has been better at creating skeptics because of volumes that get tough historicity issues out.

Wait a minute? Didn't Hugh Nibley already do this? Oh wait, he was a silly mopologist, not worth reading at all. My mistake...

- SlackTime

[mfbukowski]

That was the policy in this instance as well. The first letter from Brother Watson was written to the bishop of the man who wrote to the First Presidency. The comments were apparently intended to aid the bishop in answering the man's question. It was thus an in-house communication never intended to be a public statement of doctrine.

My opinion after reading the text of both Watson letters is that the first was written as a perfunctory matter based on what Brother Watson knew to be the traditionally held belief and what he assumed to be the position of the Church. I believe that, before writing the second letter, he actually took the trouble to consult with the Brethren, whereupon he learned that there is no official Church position regarding specific Book of Mormon geography. His letter to Bill Hamblin reflected that fact, and it was thus a more accurate rendition of reality.

Thanks for that additional information. I didn't know that the first letter was a letter to the man's bishop. That makes all the difference in the world. Clearly then it was not intended to do anything more but to assure the bishop that there was nothing being left out of the bishop's answer to the questioner, and probably simply to alert him that the individual had sent the letter to ask the question. I have received such letters myself in the case I mentioned above. In no way can that be construed as a pronouncement on doctrine.

Further, a letter to a BYU professor who is clearly well versed in doctrine would also not need to be a doctrinal pronouncement, but simply a clarification of "no position" to shortcut the professor's research time.

[Scott Lloyd]

Further, a letter to a BYU professor who is clearly well versed in doctrine would also not need to be a doctrinal pronouncement, but simply a clarification of "no position" to shortcut the professor's research time.

Moreover, in the second instance, unlike the first, Brother Watson probably knew that Professor Hamblin was making the inquiry in connection with an article he was writing and that his, Brother Watson's, response would likely be quoted in the article. Knowing it was for likely publication probably motivated him to be careful to get it right.

[DanGB]

The first letter from Brother Watson was written to the bishop of the man who wrote to the First Presidency. The comments were apparently intended to aid the bishop in answering the man's question. It was thus an in-house communication never intended to be a public statement of doctrine.

this is a little crazy. What you suggesting is that the degree of truthfulness and honesty in a letter from the office of the first presidency is dependent upon the intended audience!!! What difference would a longstanding position of the Church be in a letter to a bishop versus a letter to Farms?

Come on! Stretching it here guys!

I believe that, before writing the second letter, he actually took the trouble to consult with the Brethren, whereupon he learned that there is no official Church position regarding specific Book of Mormon geography. His letter to Bill Hamblin reflected that fact, and it was thus a more accurate rendition of reality.

Then it would sure stand to reason he would have just said that in his letter! Where does it say, anywhere, "the Church has no official position regarding BOM geography"??!!! Why couldn't he have just said that if his first letter was somehow untrue or incorrect?

Why can't we just read was was written? Seems pretty easy to me!

Again, sounds like we're stretching for words and arguments that just don't appear to be there.

[volgadon]

I think were on the same page.

I'm not too sure abut that, seeing as I was rejecting your position that we ought to teach our children to trust in accepted scholarship.

[Scott Lloyd]

this is a little crazy. What you suggesting is that the degree of truthfulness and honesty in a letter from the office of the first presidency is dependent upon the intended audience!!! What difference would a longstanding position of the Church be in a letter to a bishop versus a letter to Farms?

Come on! Stretching it here guys!

Not at all. It could be an honest mistake the first time around. When it came up again, perhaps it alerted him that the matter wasn't as settled as he initially thought it was, so he sought clarification. Doesn't reflect at all on his honestly.

Then it would sure stand to reason he would have just said that in his letter! Where does it say, anywhere, "the Church has no official position regarding BOM geography"??!!! Why couldn't he have just said that if his first letter was somehow untrue or incorrect?

Why can't we just read was was written? Seems pretty easy to me!

He could have been trying to save face. People do that all the time. Or maybe he didn't fully recall the specific content of the first letter.

And it seems pretty clear from the second letter that the Church doesn't take a position on geography.

It seems to me you are trying to blow out of proportion a perfunctory in-house communication that was never intended as a public declaration of doctrine. Why is that you are so obsessed with doing that?

[DanGB]

Not at all. It could be an honest mistake the first time around. When it came up again, perhaps it alerted him that the matter wasn't as settled as he initially thought it was, so he sought clarification. Doesn't reflect at all on his honestly.

He could have been trying to save face. People do that all the time.

But you fail to remember what was communicated in the first letter was true, honest and accurate! Look at the historic writings of our GAs and leaders. The letter was spot on. Why would anyone have to save face for being honest and doing what the Church President asked him to do?

Or maybe he didn't fully recall the specific content of the first letter.

If President Hinckley gave me a letter to respond to on his behalf, I kinda think you and I would remember it!! I am quite sure Mr. Watson did as well!!

And it seems pretty clear from the second letter that the Church doesn't take a position on geography.

And where does it say that specifically again?

It seems to me you are trying to blow out of proportion a perfunctory in-house communication that was never intended as a public declaration of doctrine. Why is that you are so apparently obsessed with doing that?

How is that. I am just trying to be honest and factual with the written correspondence presented.

[volgadon]

If President Hinckley gave me a letter to respond to on his behalf, I kinda think you and I would remember it!! I am quite sure Mr. Watson did as well!!

You would remember only because you don't do that sort of thiing on a regular basis.

[Scott Lloyd]

But you fail to remember what was communicated in the first letter was true, honest and accurate! Look at the historic writings of our GAs and leaders. The letter was spot on. Why would anyone have to save face for being honest and doing what the Church President asked him to do?

Do you know that the president of the Church told him specifically what to say in the letter? What is your source for such inside information?

If President Hinckley gave me a letter to respond to on his behalf, I kinda think you and I would remember it!! I am quite sure Mr. Watson did as well!!

You are not aware of the inner workings of the First Presidency's office. Personal inquiries come in from members all the time, so much so that the Brethren from time to time issue reminders that the member should first go to his own bishop/branch president to resolve a matter. For those who ignore that counsel, the duty falls to the secretary to deal with the letter, usually kicking it back down to the bishop to resolve in personal consultation with the member(and there must be a ton of such letters, otherwise, why issue the periodic reminder?) It stands to reason to me that the secretary would not seek directive from the First Presidency on each and every letter; after all, his duty is to relieve them of some of the burden. For the ones he feels qualified to answer on his own knowledge/understanding, he responds to them on his own initiative.

And where does it say that specifically again?

I haven't looked at the letter in a while. I'm going by memory. Quote it here and I'll try to point it out to you.

How is that. I am just trying to be honest and factual with the written correspondence presented.

And you didn't answer my question? Why do you seem so obsessed with blowing out of proportion what appears to be a perfunctory in-house communication never intended as an official declaration of doctrine?

I think you are ignoring reasonable analyses of the matter and trying to exploit this thing for polemical purposes. You would not be the first person to have done so, by any means.

[DanGB]

Scott,

All I can tell is what I overheard. It was a rather cool Friday on 10-19-90 and my wife and were in SLC for a football game. We were having lunch at the Nordstroms cafe in the mall across from ZCMI w her good friend Cindy Larsen. Cindy worked in the COB and accidently left some packages at our table when she left to go back to work. I called her to get her floor so I could return her stuff. She called security to let "me up to the 15th floor. I dropped off her stuff and got back in the elevator only to be surprised to find President Hincley, Bro Watson and Mick Jagger all in there as well. I distinctly remember President Hinckley asking Bro Watson:

"Now don't forget to mail that letter to Bishop Brooks letting him know of our longstanding position, Cumorah is in New York for the last time! And ask him to tell the members to just read the previous writings of our GAs! Krimeny, we could see the Cougs play more often if we didn't have to answer these geography letters!"

The reason I remember this so vividly is that Bro Watson was obligated to stop by the Temple for something and he was deathly afraid he would not get the letter to the post office in time for weekend mailing. Then suddenly Mick Jagger spoke up saying: "Pleased to meet you, won't you let me drop that letter off on my way". Apparently Mick was in town to return a breif case to Elder Cook that was mistakenly left in his possesion from a flight the two of them apparently shared prior. Nice guy.

So I can vouch for Bro Watson's honesty and integrity in that letter (my post 55 above). Do you still think Bro Watson was not being truthful in his letter?

[mfbukowski]

this is a little crazy. What you suggesting is that the degree of truthfulness and honesty in a letter from the office of the first presidency is dependent upon the intended audience!!! What difference would a longstanding position of the Church be in a letter to a bishop versus a letter to Farms?

If you can't see the difference between a communication between a high official and a middle manager in an organization and a communication which is intended to be an official, public position statement for the whole organization, I frankly see no further basis for discussion of this matter.

Since when does a secretary at General Motors, say, release public statements to the press regarding the direction the company wishes to pursue?

If you can't see that, I don't know what else to say.

The issue has nothing to do with truthfulness and honesty, it has to do with how much information was required to settle the issue for the bishop, not for anyone else. I think it is usually presumed that bishops know a little about doctrine, and so it is not necessary to go into detail.

[mfbukowski]

If President Hinckley gave me a letter to respond to on his behalf, I kinda think you and I would remember it!! I am quite sure Mr. Watson did as well!!

You are just not getting this. The poor man's entire job was probably to write virtual form letters to bishops of people who sent weird questions to the first presidency. He probably wrote 20 of these a day.

[DanGB]

If you can't see the difference between a communication between a high official and a middle manager in an organization and a communication which is intended to be an official, public position statement for the whole organization, I frankly see no further basis for discussion of this matter.

Since when does a secretary at General Motors, say, release public statements to the press regarding the direction the company wishes to pursue?

If you can't see that, I don't know what else to say.

The issue has nothing to do with truthfulness and honesty, it has to do with how much information was required to settle the issue for the bishop, not for anyone else. I think it is usually presumed that bishops know a little about doctrine, and so it is not necessary to go into detail.

Come on now, quit avoiding the question: Was there any incorrect or untrue information in the first presidency letter to Bro Brooks???

Simple question looking for a sraightfrward answer!

I say there was nothing untruthful nor unsubstantiated in that letter.

[mfbukowski]

Scott,

All I can tell is what I overheard. It was a rather cool Friday on 10-19-90 and my wife and were in SLC for a football game. We were having lunch at the Nordstroms cafe in the mall across from ZCMI w her good friend Cindy Larsen. Cindy worked in the COB and accidently left some packages at our table when she left to go back to work. I called her to get her floor so I could return her stuff. She called security to let "me up to the 15th floor. I dropped off her stuff and got back in the elevator only to be surprised to find President Hincley, Bro Watson and Mick Jagger all in there as well. I distinctly remember President Hinckley asking Bro Watson:

"Now don't forget to mail that letter to Bishop Brooks letting him know of our longstanding position, Cumorah is in New York for the last time! And ask him to tell the members to just read the previous writings of our GAs! Krimeny, we could see the Cougs play more often if we didn't have to answer these geography letters!"

The reason I remember this so vividly is that Bro Watson was obligated to stop by the Temple for something and he was deathly afraid he would not get the letter to the post office in time for weekend mailing. Then suddenly Mick Jagger spoke up saying: "Pleased to meet you, won't you let me drop that letter off on my way". Apparently Mick was in town to return a breif case to Elder Cook that was mistakenly left in his possesion from a flight the two of them apparently shared prior. Nice guy.

So I can vouch for Bro Watson's honesty and integrity in that letter (my post 55 above). Do you still think Bro Watson was not being truthful in his letter?

You obviously are here to play around and waste time. I am outa here.