In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[mfbukowski]

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.

Did I say there was? I am definitely out of here. This is a waste.

[DanGB]

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

On your way out, may I suggest stopping by the Comedy Club and learning to laugh. I have no doubt that even Prophets have a sense of humor! But, no, I can't say that it's doctrine!

[DanGB]

I disagree.

Why?

[volgadon]

On your way out, may I suggest stopping by the Comedy Club and learning to laugh.

They aren't that funny either.

[DanGB]

They aren't that funny either.

Why?

[Greg Smith]

On the second Watson letter:

I have a contact at the FARMS office, who located a copy of the letter from John Sorenson's files (their offices moved fairly recently, and that's how it got mislaid). It is still on the original fax paper from the First Presidency's office, and it has a note on it discussing a bit more about the provenance.

My contact is snail-mailing me the copy, and I have permission to post it to the FAIR wiki when it arrives. It was mailed today; it will probably be up by early next week depending on the vagaries of the US and Canadian postal services.

The text is reportedly as printed in the FARMS Review article by Hamblin. It is also made clear by an annotation on the fax that the First Presidency wished to clarify the impression left by Bro. (now Elder) Watson's first letter.

But, doubters can soon see the text for themselves, it seems.

I will try to remember to post an announcement in this thread when it is up. I expect the FAIR blog or newsletter will also contain a mention.

Best,

Greg Smith

FAIR wiki managing editor

[Doctor Steuss]

On the second Watson letter:

I have a contact at the FARMS office, who located a copy of the letter from John Sorenson's files (their offices moved fairly recently, and that's how it got mislaid). It is still on the original fax paper from the First Presidency's office, and it has a note on it discussing a bit more about the provenance.

My contact is snail-mailing me the copy, and I have permission to post it to the FAIR wiki when it arrives. It was mailed today; it will probably be up by early next week depending on the vagaries of the US and Canadian postal services.

The text is reportedly as printed in the FARMS Review article by Hamblin. It is also made clear by an annotation on the fax that the First Presidency wished to clarify the impression left by Bro. (now Elder) Watson's first letter.

But, doubters can soon see the text for themselves, it seems.

I will try to remember to post an announcement in this thread when it is up. I expect the FAIR blog or newsletter will also contain a mention.

Best,

Greg Smith

FAIR wiki managing editor

*Cue Sinister Organ Music*

Wonder what ripples this will make in any ponds...

[mfbukowski]

Why?

Because God made them that way. I'm just trying to keep it simple for you.

Just joking of course.

[DanGB]

On the second Watson letter:

I have a contact at the FARMS office, who located a copy of the letter from John Sorenson's files (their offices moved fairly recently, and that's how it got mislaid). It is still on the original fax paper from the First Presidency's office, and it has a note on it discussing a bit more about the provenance.

My contact is snail-mailing me the copy, and I have permission to post it to the FAIR wiki when it arrives. It was mailed today; it will probably be up by early next week depending on the vagaries of the US and Canadian postal services.

The text is reportedly as printed in the FARMS Review article by Hamblin. It is also made clear by an annotation on the fax that the First Presidency wished to clarify the impression left by Bro. (now Elder) Watson's first letter.

But, doubters can soon see the text for themselves, it seems.

I will try to remember to post an announcement in this thread when it is up. I expect the FAIR blog or newsletter will also contain a mention.

Best,

Greg Smith

Cool, would love to see it. Would love to see the original of the first one as well!

I thought this second one was between Watson and Hamblin? Who is Sorenson and why does he now have it? (I have no idea who either of these guys are for the record).

FAIR wiki managing editor

[Calm]

I thought this second one was between Watson and Hamblin? Who is Sorenson and why does he now have it? (I have no idea who either of these guys are for the record).

Just how much looking for "convincing LDS scholarship" have you actually done? (serious question)

[DanGB]

Just how much looking for "convincing LDS scholarship" have you actually done? (serious question)

Not sure I understand the reason, background or motive of your question. If you could elaborate I would love to respond!

[Hamba Tuhan]

Not sure I understand the reason, background or motive of your question. If you could elaborate I would love to respond!

I could be wrong, Dan, but I suspect the question had something to do with the fact that you claimed complete ignorance of two of the most widely known and 'convincing' LDS scholars out there....

[DanGB]

I could be wrong, Dan, but I suspect the question had something to do with the fact that you claimed complete ignorance of two of the most widely known and 'convincing' LDS scholars out there....

Well I suppose that's why I ask questions first. Like I said, we don't have Deseret Bookstores here in Texas. Sorry.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Well I suppose that's why I ask questions first. Like I said, we don't have Deseret Bookstores here in Texas. Sorry.

I understand, mate; we don't have Church bookshops of any kind here, either. At the same time, you do seem to be reasonably familiar with a fair amount of critical 'scholarship.' I'm assuming you didn't get that from books, either. The internet, perhaps? Fortunately, a decent amount of good LDS stuff is online, too. You might want to begin here.

[dblagent007]

On the second Watson letter:

I have a contact at the FARMS office, who located a copy of the letter from John Sorenson's files (their offices moved fairly recently, and that's how it got mislaid). It is still on the original fax paper from the First Presidency's office, and it has a note on it discussing a bit more about the provenance.

My contact is snail-mailing me the copy, and I have permission to post it to the FAIR wiki when it arrives. It was mailed today; it will probably be up by early next week depending on the vagaries of the US and Canadian postal services.

The text is reportedly as printed in the FARMS Review article by Hamblin. It is also made clear by an annotation on the fax that the First Presidency wished to clarify the impression left by Bro. (now Elder) Watson's first letter.

But, doubters can soon see the text for themselves, it seems.

I will try to remember to post an announcement in this thread when it is up. I expect the FAIR blog or newsletter will also contain a mention.

Best,

Greg Smith

FAIR wiki managing editor

Greg, did you also find a copy of the letter Bill Hamblin sent to the First Presidency that spurred it to change course. It would be very interesting to see what he said that caused the FP to issue the second letter.

[volgadon]

Cool, would love to see it. Would love to see the original of the first one as well!

I thought this second one was between Watson and Hamblin? Who is Sorenson and why does he now have it? (I have no idea who either of these guys are for the record).

FAIR wiki managing editor

[mfbukowski]

If one was looking for convincing scholarship, and claiming there was none, one would imagine that he had at least looked at what WAS available.

So much for that assumption.

[Scott Lloyd]

The text is reportedly as printed in the FARMS Review article by Hamblin. It is also made clear by an annotation on the fax that the First Presidency wished to clarify the impression left by Bro. (now Elder) Watson's first letter.

An interesting development. It should lay the matter to rest for any reasonable observer. I predict, though, that there will still be intransigent critics, so aptly exemplified by DanGB on this very thread, who cling stubbornly and irrationally to the notion that a perfunctory in-house communication from a Church functionary amounts to an official declaration of doctrine, despite a follow-up communication that, in effect, disavows an erroneous impression left by the first.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Not his entire job, but definitely part of his duties. Where I work, we had some dealings with Brother Watson during the years he served as secretary to the First Presidency. His role was a facilitator, a logistics manager, if you will, who took care of routine tasks and incidental details so as to free up the Brethren for more important matters. It was not his job to formulate or declare doctrine. That is the province of the president of the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

I appreciate good satire, which amuses while at the same time shedding light on reality. The above fails in both respects.

[DanGB]

I appreciate good satire, which amuses while at the same time shedding light on reality. The above fails in both respects.

Why do you think so?

[mfbukowski]

Not his entire job, but definitely part of his duties. Where I work, we had some dealings with Brother Watson during the years he served as secretary to the First Presidency. His role was a facilitator, a logistics manager, if you will, who took care of routine tasks and incidental details so as to free up the Brethren for more important matters. It was not his job to formulate or declare doctrine. That is the province of the president of the Church.

Thanks for this straight from someone with direct knowledge of the workings of these offices.

[DanGB]

Thanks for this straight from someone with direct knowledge of the workings of these offices.

Yeah. Thanks. Last time I get impressed by Mick Jagger!

[Greg Smith]

Cool, would love to see it. Would love to see the original of the first one as well!

I thought this second one was between Watson and Hamblin? Who is Sorenson and why does he now have it? (I have no idea who either of these guys are for the record).

I have a scan of the first one around somewhere.

To answer a few of the questions in bulk:

* as I understand it, Hamblin's letter did not provoke the response being written. From what I was told, some anti-Mormons were making great hay out of the letter somewhere, some local leader wrote SLC to ask if this letter was indeed church doctrine (him having never heard this), and Watson indicated that the First Presidency wished to clarify his original letter. So, I _think_ Hamblin just received a copy of a letter that had already been sent.

* no, I do not have a copy of the Hamblin query letter; as I said, I don't think it impacted the letter's text since that had been written in response to a different issue.

* Sorenson was at FARMS (now the Maxwell Institute). Copies were made of the letter to Hamblin and circulated among a few FARMS folk when it came over the wire. Sorenson's interest in Book of Mormon geography made him something who obviously would have an interest in such things. Sorenson just handed his files over en masse when the MI moved to different digs on BYU, and they hadn't been sorted through until recently, upon which the letter turned up.

* Sorenson was one of the first serious treatments of Book of Mormon geo based on the text. If you haven't read him (start with Mormon's Map, then Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon) then you are about 30 years behind the times in LDS apologetics and scholarly discussion about such matters. Much of his work is available at the MI site (http://mi.byu.edu).

Don't hold me to all this until I see the letter, but I'm about 95% sure I have the story straight.

GLS

[DanGB]

Wouldn't it be great to get Hamblin and Sorenson to come here and explain all this speculation first hand??!!

From what it sounds like, they contribute here. Their participation on all this would really go a long way to validate whatever is supposed to have really happened!

What do you all think?