Prof. Clark - BOM Archaeology?

[Daniel Peterson]

Great...hopefully he can clear up those pesky little things like horses, cattle, oxen, steel, cureloms, cumoms, silk, etc etc etc...maybe he will let us know why no indigenous crops to the americas are mentioned in the BOM too...and how you can take a feathered serpent and turn it into a story about it being Jesus when he visited the America's...

Are you up on the currently available literature regarding these topics, Just Curious? I myself have published an article within the past few months that treats some of these matters. Have you read it? Or are you really not very curious at all?

[Freedom]

Again you obviously have not read the BOM very well...yes it does tell what walls looked like...there are stone walls and walls made of timber...etc...

Ok, I will play your game. If you consider this descriptive enough than we have proven the book true because you will find buildings fitting that description all over mezo America. In fact, every detail that we find in the book has been found. The problem there is not enough details to make exact matches. We don

[Joey]

Big difference here as compared to the claims within the BOM. While we may have only found something that has, in fact, been spoken of for thousands of years, none of the sites, peoples or events contained with in the BOM have even been spoken of for hundreds of years, let alone "thousands of years".

well, exactly. None of the cities have been spoken of because we do not have any records and no research has been done to find them. We know that there was a civilization there that was rather complex yet we have no records. In Alexandria we have 2 thousand years of people talking about it and we have only just now found concrete evidence that the library existed, if in fact it really is the library. We have no descriptions in any ancient texts of buildings or anything else in mezo America so no matter what we find it won

[Daniel Peterson]

As Daniel Peterson pointed out above, that is precisely why FARMS will be publishing Clarks work.  As he said, it is faith promoting only.  It has nothing to do with "archaeological scholarship". 

That is, of course, not at all what I said. If you're going to abuse me, Joey, and flagrantly distort what I've said, please at least demonstrate the street smarts to do it someplace where I'm not almost certain to see what you've done.

But why even pretend to cite me in the first place, when you have to know full well that you're misrepresenting me?

This isn't civil conversation, Joey. Shame on you.

It can't.  If it could, and it had any scholastic or academic merit, it would be published by a professional organization.

That's not true, Joey. You're simply wrong. None of the journals that I mentioned above has ever published a piece of overt Catholic or Protestant apologetics, and there's no reason at all to suspect that they're suddenly in a mood to publish Mormon apologetics.

But as Daniel and I have documented before, when the lds church has attempted to take an official position on BOM  geography, it has got itself into trouble.

We've "documented" nothing of the kind, Joey. How dare you falsify my position like this?

I have consistently pointed out that the Church has never had "an official position on BOM geography." In fact, as I've pointed out dozens of times, its only official stance on Book of Mormon geography has been expressly to deny that it has one. I have never, ever, said anything other than this. Shame on you, Joey.

As for your various bets and predictions, they have even less value than your false statements about the past.

Pretty disgusting behavior, Joey. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Freedom]

Do you know of any record of an ancient civilization as large as the one claimed by the BOM that has no records or no research being perfomed to try and identify

[Joey]

Daniel,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to your response but, as I

[Wunna Dem Marminz]

Hey Joey - I have two questions for you:

Let's say you woke up tomorrow to discover the following:

* President Hinkley announced that a year ago an angel had returned and presented him with the sealed portion of the plates, telling him it was time to translate them. He did so, and in a press conference, hands over his translation as well as the actual plates to a committee of LDS and non-LDS scientists, linguists, metalurgists, anthropogists, etc. for study.

* The plates are carefully scruitinized and tested, and show every sign of being exactly what they claim to be - an ancient record in what could be accurately described as "reformed Egyptian".

* Using the translation as a sort of "rosetta stone", the scientists state Pres. Hinkley's translation is accurate.

* The translation turns out to be a more secular history of the Nephites, which much more accurately describes where and how they lived. Using this new information, archaeologists are led to new places to go dig, and they do in fact discover huge amounts of new evidence that supports the BoM. Science now has horse and elephant bones, steel swords and breastplates. The sword of Laban is discovered. We dig and discover destroyed Nephite cities, battle sites, etc.

* We discover Lehi's burial place, as well as many other Lamanite and Nephite burial sites - and DNA testing confirms the presence of Hebrew DNA.

* Professional non-LDS Archaeologists swarm over these new discoveries, and universally begin to paint a picture consistent with the limited hemispheric hypothesis.

Here are my two questions: If all this stuff happened, would you bend your knee, confess Christ as your Savior, acknowledge Gordon B. Hinkley as a prophet, leading the true church, and "go, and criticize no more"? If not, why not?

Wunna

[A Random Catholic]

Wunna: I'm sorry, all of that still wouldn't outweigh the fact that your Church features a Quorum of Seventy with forty-five members and people who don't drink ice tea because the Word of Wisdom forbids hot beverages. I'll never believe! NEVER!!!

[YH8]

Wunna: I'm sorry, all of that still wouldn't outweigh the fact that your Church features a Quorum of Seventy with forty-five members and people who don't drink ice tea because the Word of Wisdom forbids hot beverages. I'll never believe! NEVER!!!

Is this a serious statement? If so, you don't understand much about things LDS, do you? Also, it sounds like you may have a hard time generalizing knowledge, etc. Since the WOW says not to drink wine or strong drink, etc., and has basically been interpreted to mean alcoholic beverages, does that mean a person can drink mouthwash and/or Nyquil and not have a "drinking" problem? After all, mouthwash and Nyquil are not beverages, you know.

[Beowulf]

Wunna: I'm sorry, all of that still wouldn't outweigh the fact that your Church features a Quorum of Seventy with forty-five members and people who don't drink ice tea because the Word of Wisdom forbids hot beverages. I'll never believe! NEVER!!!

You sound like the Church of the Last Agnostic!

[YH8]

From a different thread:

One of the things I've always marveled at in a certain strand of fundamentalist Protestants is their enthusiastic willingness to take over God's duties as judge.

And yet when there are so many, such as myself, that point out the lds church is doing just this:

[Wunna Dem Marminz]

Wunna: I'm sorry, all of that still wouldn't outweigh the fact that your Church features a Quorum of Seventy with forty-five members and people who don't drink ice tea because the Word of Wisdom forbids hot beverages. I'll never believe! NEVER!!!

Yeah, but what about the OTHER 35 members! Tee-hee!

Seriously, I'd love to hear your serious answer to the questions ARC...

Wunna

[Daniel Peterson]

Daniel, until you become an official spokesperson for the lds church, your statements are your

[Dunamis]

Joey, given that I have just cleaned up and warned another poster about the impropriety of discussing another poster's paycheck in addition to that sensation of stalking that I get when reading that you are documenting someone else's participation on this board, I'm putting you on moderated queue for two weeks.

[Joey]

Daniel,

I’d like to address, in some detail, some flaws, inconsistencies and factual problems I find with your claims regarding “an official” lds church position with respect to BOM geography.

I referred you to an article by William Hamblin in which he cited statements from Church leaders saying that the Church has no official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon.

I think if you read the article you will see this is not correct and Hamblin himself becomes guilty of the same practices and referencing that he accuses Luke Wilson of in his article. To demonstrate my point, lets quote Hamblin from his own article here:

Wilson also distorts the opinions of Latter-day Saint General Authorities on the issue of Book of Mormon geography.

"The limited geography theory has been repeatedly condemned by LDS leaders, including Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr. (10th President), Harold B. Lee (11th President), and Bruce R. McConkie" (3b).

There are problems with this assertion.

First, Wilson does not provide complete references to the statements of these Church leaders, so it is difficult to evaluate his claims as to what these Latter-day Saint leaders taught. For example, the only source provided for Bruce R. McConkie's opinion is Doctrines of Salvation, which in fact contains the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith as compiled by Bruce R. McConkie.

Now, lets take a look at how Hamblin becomes guilty of his own flagrant criticism:

Hamblin makes the following statement with respect to the geography of the BOM:

Finally, Wilson does not mention the fact that the Latter-day Saint Church has no official position on Book of Mormon geography,

However if you look at Hamblin’s source, via his footnotes, for this statement, he sources two non-official publications and no actual church leaders. Then he goes on to say:

or that other Latter-day Saint General Authorities have advised caution in theorizing about Book of Mormon geography.

Here again he cites unofficial quotes from a book by Sorenson, also not an official spokesperson for the lds church. Here Sorenson then indirectly quotes certain past lds members “as compiled by Sorenson”. So it is difficult to evaluate his claims as to what these Latter-day Saint leaders taught. Furthermore, all of his support predates the letter issued by The Office of the First Presidency here: http://www.utlm.org/images/cumorahletter.gif

So, we have yet to find an “official statement” by the lds church saying they have no official statement on the BOM geography as you have claimed. We do however have a copy of a letter from the First Presidency stating, in no uncertain terms, that “The Church has long maintained, ……, that the Hill Cumorah, located in western New York, is the same Hill Cumorah as mentioned in the Book of Mormon”

Still with me?

You brush those statements aside.

Actually, I read through them, applied some minimal, but very basic critical thinking, and could find no support to your claim. Please feel free to point out any error of mine or the actual “official church statement” you claim exists.

The article by William Hamblin quotes from a letter written by the secretary to the First Presidency clarifying his previous letter (which you had cited as proof of an official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon) and, as it turns out, directly undercutting your claim that his previous letter represents an official position on Book of Mormon geography.

Again, this statement is not factually correct on several accounts. It does not cite a “letter”, it cites correspondence. It also shows Hamblin doing exactly what he criticizes Wilson of doing. Let me again demonstrate by providing the actual facts. Hamblins article makes this statement:

Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency of the Church, has recently clarified the Church's position on Book of Mormon geography.

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 [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.

Hamblin’s source for this: " Correspondence from Michael Watson, Office of the First Presidency, 23 April 1993."

From the above we see that there was no “retraction” or even “acknowledgement” of the original letter by Watson. Furthermore, there is no specific indication that such correspondence was written or verbal and it is unclear if it came in the form of an “official church statement” from the Office of the First Presidency. But as Hamblin himself was so critical of Luke Wilson in his article; he “does not provide complete references to the statements of these Church leaders, so it is difficult to evaluate his claims as to what these Latter-day Saint leaders taught”. We don’t know if this was a letter or verbal exchange from Watson personally or if he was speaking for the First Presidency in an official capacity. We certainly don’t see Watson making any retraction of the prior letter issued from the First Presidency’s Office. All we have is hearsay evidence from you and Hamblin in an “unofficial” capacity. I trust you agree with me that neither you, nor Hamblin speak for the church, correct?

You responded by suggesting that Professor Hamblin may have invented the letter from the secretary to the First Presidency.

I made no such statement (reference please). I said, given the level of documentation and now seeing how Hamblin himself is so guilty of what he criticizes Wilson of doing in documenting his position, I have great suspicion. Such suspicion is well founded for several logical and very obvious reasons.

First, The Office of The First Presidency issued the above cited (and complete photocopy provided) letter referring to a “long standing position as attested to by writings of the general authorities”, and then, supposedly, two years later says the church has now reversed itself completely!!!! This begs the initial question of whether the lds church, Watson, or Pres. Hinkley can be that confused over a “significant and supposedly long standing position”. Or, perhaps, how can Watson be trusted in such a position to begin with? I mean if told you I just heard that Pres. Bush came out and said: “ It was never about terror or WMD’s in Iraq”, would you be a bit suspicious and ask for a little bit more documentation of such claim? Hamblin’s evidence for such statement is not very telling.

Second, and even more puzzling to me, is the fact that you refer me to Hamblin’s article in the first place. If one wanted to find an “official lds church position” why not go to an “official church source”? Is that not a fair and reasonable question/observation? Don’t you think it’s a bit ironic that the only support for an “official lds church position” (as you claim) is an article provided by an organization that expressly states:

“Nevertheless, such work represents only the views of individual scholars and writers and in no way is meant or intended to represent the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Brigham Young University, or the Institute.”

Come on Daniel, how many times have you and others here jumped all over posters who attempt to use unofficial sources as representing official lds church positions. For me, the irony of this is not only hysterical, buts begs the observation of hypocrisy.

But why debate what was or was not said, can we not provide a copy of this letter? Now that summer vacation is over and you and Hamblin are close associates, if a letter was issued, would Hamblin share it with you? My point remains, you have not provided any first hand evidence that the lds church has ever claimed “it has no official position”, while I have provided a photocopy of a letter saying it has. All you have provided is hearsay. Really, if such letter exists, what could possibly be the danger of providing it? Or could you just refer me to an official lds church source that retracts what was originally stated in the 1990 letter provided above and claims “the lds church has never had an official position on the BOM geography”? Why is that not a fair request?

I abandoned the conversation when my patience for such nonsense, which is very limited, expired.

I see. When you are asked to provide factual support, or we question your “supposed” facts, “it’s nonsense”. But that is exactly what you demand from others under the guise of “being professional”. Like I said before, I have no doubt that there are those who will take what you say, at face value, as the gospel. But when critical thinking is applied and one follows up on your statements, I think I better appreciate now why you choose to abandon.

None whatsoever. And my personal finances are none of your business.

I agree and certainly did not want to pry.

My point was to demonstrate why I find bias in many of your statements/conclusions. I think it’s only fair for me to explain my concerns for bias if I raise the issue, that’s all. As a Chairman, director and counsel member of many corporate, civic and charitable organizations, such issue is discussed quite regularly so it’s rather a normal issue of concern.

Finally, the concern of “stalking” did bring a humorous smile to my face. I can assure both you and the mods that I do not have the intent, nor the time to stalk anyone. But could we just keep that accusation here? If the FDIC ever got wind of such rumor, I may be asked to step down as bank Chair!!!!

I look forward to your comments and will get back to them when I get time.

Moderator note: Joey, one more time. I have no interest whatsover what your "point" is when prying into the personal affairs of another poster. Knock it off. This is not allowed for anyone. The last time I had to clean up this kind of snooping it was for an exMormon who was not particularly popular here. It works both ways. This is a long post and obviously well thought out. But I have no desire to spend my time reading the queue and then having to find your post and edit it on the board. I let this one through. I won't be doing that again.

[Joey]

I would certainly appreciate it if Tal Bachman, the "Truth Seeker," would respond to the comments that have been made on this thread about his claims regarding LDS apologetics.

I would certainly appreciate it if Daniel Peterson would respond to the comments above (which are factually supported) about his claims regarding the lds church has an "official position" with respect to BOM geography.

[Joey]

Daniel,

I

[Daniel Peterson]

Hamblin makes the following statement with respect to the geography of the BOM:

Finally, Wilson does not mention the fact that the Latter-day Saint Church has no official position on Book of Mormon geography,

However if you look at Hamblin

[TrespassersW]

So, we have yet to find an

[ScriptureLover]

Joey -

Clark

[awyatt]

DCP said: No. It wasn't a general letter from the First Presidency. It was a letter to a specific individual from the secretary to the First Presidency.

Perhaps Joey should be given the benefit of the doubt in this. I do not know whether Joey is LDS, or what his knowledge is concerning LDS organization. But, it would appear that he is operating under a false assumption concerning the way that presiding bodies work in the Church.

Local wards are presided over by a bishopric, which consists of a bishop and two counselors. An executive secretary and a ward clerk meets with the bishopric, but they are not part of the bishopric. They help the bishopric in administrative tasks, but have no ecclessiastical authority.

Local stakes are likewise presided over by a stake presidency, which is similarly constituted. Only the stake president and his counselors have ecclessiastical authority; not the stake executive secretary or stake clerk.

The Church is presided over by the First Presidency, which consists of the President and his two counselors. There are administrative assistants who meet with the First Presidency, including an executive secretary. This is the position held by Brother Watson at the time he wrote the letter cited. He holds no ecclessiastical authority; he is not a prophet, seer, or revelator; he does not speak for the First Presidency in doctrinal issues.

To say that Brother Watson's letter is somehow issued by "the First Presidency" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Church works.

-Allen

[Calm]

Sorry, shouldn't have posted personal info even if the person had posted elsewhere.

[Joey]

You don't seem to have paid much real attention to the footnotes. George Q. Cannon was an apostle and a counselor in the First Presidency to four presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He was the publisher and editor of The Instructor, which was the magazine of the Church's Sunday school in the nineteenth century. Pretty official. John A. Widstoe was an apostle who was writing in the Church's official magazine. Again, pretty official. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism isn't official, but it's the next best thing

Oh I paid attention. You

[Daniel Peterson]

Hey, this was in 1956 no less!!!!

True. Fully fourteen years before Joseph Fielding Smith became president of the Church. I explained in my previous post how the official doctrine of the Church is set, in addition to clear statements in the Standard Works: It is set in official and explicit declarations of the president of the Church, typically with his counselors and very often with the Council of the Twelve. The statement from Joseph Fielding Smith, while it certainly reflects ideas commonly held in the Church during his lifetime (and particularly during his formative years), is not an official statement of Church doctrine.

You could clinch your victory and prove me wrong by directing me to a statement from the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve setting forth an official Book of Mormon geography. Please feel free to do so.

Do we indeed now?

[Joey]

Daniel,

Would the following be