Prof. Clark - BOM Archaeology?

[Confidential Informant]

Daniel,

Would the following be

[Joey]

Is this really the best you've got Joey?

Your point? Is it not factual?

President Ivins giving his summary of what he believes B.H. Robert's taught?

So do you think he is giving it to the members at a general conference in hopes they embrace it or reject it? Again, what is your point?

Then the statement, "We know positively..." Well, Joey, how do we know this?

Are you serious here? How many times have mormons said "I know the church is true"? Followed by non-mormons asking "how do you know it's true".

Don't you think it would be safe to say that Ivins prayed about it first and was answered by God to present it to the membership during general conference? Are not general conferences an inspired gathering? Can you prove that he didn't pray about it? (Another common lds rebuttal tactic!!)

So again, you've got nothing except a recitation of the accepted belief of the day.

Ah, but it was an inspired recitation after he prayed about it!

The problem you have is that we've never denied that the hill in New York was considered to be the same Cumorah as that mentioned in the B of M.

Maybe you haven't. But Daniel Peterson and Bro. Hamblin (I pressume) have. Just read Peterson's posts here.

There is a mountain in the middle East that is the traditional Mt. Sinai, does the fact that most scholars don't accept that site as authetic mean anything?

I don't know of any church issuing a letter claiming to have identified the exact location of this mountain. Again, what is your point?

Romney does the exact same thing, simply recites the accepted attitude of the day. He most certainly does not claim that the that attitude/knowledge was divinely given.

Can you prove he didn't pray about before giving his speech? (Hey, I'm beginning to like this lds rebuttal tactic!!)

Get it through your head, Joey: MORMONS ARE NOT FUNDAMENTALISTIC INERRANTISTS.

OK, OK, OK. Now you just gotta convince Daniel Peterson that he isn't either

[Daniel Peterson]

Joey, if my posts are as exceedingly worthless as you say they are, why do you keep asking me questions?

Would the following be

[Bill Hamblin]

Also, I think it

[juliann]

I don't want to read through all this nonsense, so could someone summarize what, exactly, it is that I have done that I shouldn't have, or have failed to do that I should have?

The best that I can figure out is that you are supposed to denounce the church.

[Calm]

Joey apparently thinks that you would go so far to cite a nonexistant letter in an academic paper, in particular the followup letter about the Hill Cumorah from the Executive Secretary.

LDS Scholars are cads, frauds and capable of all sorts of skulduggery in Joey's eyes.

And apparently so confident in their snowballing skills that they create footnotes out of the air just for the fun of it.

He won't believe the letter exists until he sees it with his own eyes. I believe he wants you to hire a courier service to ship it to him along with a notary and document specialist to authenticate its reality.

Of course his remarkable effort of linking to an apparent photocopy of the original letter from the Secretary claiming the shared location of the Cumorahs is proof positive that the Church's official position is exactly what he says it is. It has the letterhead after all.

[Confidential Informant]

Your point?  Is it not factual?

Oh the quotes are factual. Your inferences are not.

So do you think he is giving it to the members at a general conference in hopes they embrace it or reject it?  Again, what is your point?

He neither hoped that they would embrace or reject it. He was citing beliefs that were already widely held. His speech that day wasn't persuasive, it was reflective of the views already held by the vast majority of his congregation. In other words, Joey, he was preching to the choir.

Are you serious here?  How many times have mormons said "I know the church is true"?  Followed by non-mormons asking "how do you know it's true".

Complete red herring answer. Deal with the text and the answer I gave. Stop trying to make up the answer you wish I'd given and then trying to attribute it to me. How did he "positively" know it? Well probably because Oliver Cowderey had said it, most everyone bellieved it, and no one ever bothered to actually look at it with a critical eye. If you understood anything about the Book of Mormon was used by the member for the first 150 years of the Church, you might grasp this. However, I'm not holding my breath. You seem to prefer the jackhammer approach. You appear to have no appreciation for nuances. Your thinking is black and white, exactly what I'd expect from a fundamentlaist.

Don't you think it would be safe to say that Ivins prayed about it first and was answered by God to present it to the membership during general conference?

No, I don't and I can't think of single reason why I would ever assume such a thing. He didn't say that he had received any divine guidance on the issue (in fact, no church leader has ever claimed such a thing to my knowledge) and I have no reason to impute such an action to him. Moreover, he could not have presented in such a manner. He was not the Prophet and no authority to declare what would essentially be a doctrinal postion on B of M geography.

Just out of curiosity, Joey, are you big into conspiracy theories? Do you see dark cabals around each corner? I ask because you seem to have a talent for seeing nefarious motives and eerie machinations behind rather mundane action and language.

Are not general conferences an inspired gathering?

Indeed they are. So what? Do you not consider the Bible to be an inspired document? Yet it is repleat with factual inacurracies. For example, rabbits don't chew their cuds. (See Lev. 11:6). Bats are not "birds". (See Lev. 11:13-19). And insects have six legs, not four. (See Lev. 11:21-23).

If your divinely inspired book may contain such faux pas, why must every word spoken at LDS general conference be scientifically correct?

Can you prove that he didn't pray about it?

Why would I want to?

(Another common lds rebuttal tactic!!)

Really? I can't recall ever seeing that particular rebuttal being used on this board or any other that I've participated on. Can you establish as a fact that this is a common rebuttal or have you simply made this up and then attributed it to Mormons? I've noticed that "simulated conversations" are a popular fundamentalist technique. What the heck, if people won't respond how you want them to then you just make up a conversation in which you can control the responses.

But, I'm off topic.

Ah, but it was an inspired recitation after he prayed about it!

Great, when you explain to me how Moses' "inspired" view that rabbits chew their cud is okay, then I'll concern myself with theoretical debates to whether or not some LDS leader did or did not pray about an issue of geography that has not relation to our spiritual welfare whatsoever.

The problem you have is that we've never denied that the hill in New York was considered to be the same Cumorah as that mentioned in the B of M.

Maybe you haven't. But Daniel Peterson and Bro. Hamblin (I pressume) have. Just read Peterson's posts here.

And this simply prove that you aren't really reading what Peterson and Hamblin have been posting since they've explicitly admitted that this was the general belief of the membership for over a century. In fact, you can't show me a single place where they have denied this.

Your credibility (such as it is ) us waning.

I don't know of any church issuing a letter claiming to have identified the exact location of this mountain.  Again, what is your point?

Good, I don't know of any letter from the LDS church proclaiming the exact location of Cumorah. Oh, I know a letter from a secretary in the Church which states that that has been the general belief. However, I'm also aware of a letter from the exact same secretary which retracts the first letter. (Apparently for fundamentalist, once something is said, it must be remain and all subsequent utterances are null and void).

Can you prove he didn't pray about before giving his speech?  (Hey, I'm beginning to like this lds rebuttal tactic!!)

No, I can't "prove" anything. But he certainly did say that he prayed and I have no reason to believe that he did.

Is this really the best argumentation you can come up with? Fictional rejoinders which you fabricate and then apply to Mormons? How utterly lame.

Get it through your head, Joey: MORMONS ARE NOT FUNDAMENTALISTIC INERRANTISTS.

OK, OK, OK. Now you just gotta convince Daniel Peterson that he isn't either

That's really funny. Dr. P at a fundie! LOLOLOLOL.

Another thread going down hill fast.

I wish Cinepro would post more. At least he's literate and makes sense.

C.I.

[Bill Hamblin]

Joey apparently thinks that you would go so far to cite a nonexistant letter in an academic paper, in particular the followup letter about the Hill Cumorah from the Executive Secretary.

LDS Scholars are cads, frauds and capable of all sorts of skulduggery in Joey's eyes.

And apparently so confident in their snowballing skills that they create footnotes out of the air just for the fun of it.

He won't believe the letter exists until he sees it with his own eyes. I believe he wants you to hire a courier service to ship it to him along with a notary and document specialist to authenticate its reality.

Alas, I don't know where the letter is. It was over a decade ago, if I recall, I haven't looked at it since I published the article in which it is quoted. It may be in my files--sometimes known as "the primordial chaos." I fear Joey will have to continue believing that I am a fraud and liar.

I do have two suggestions:

1- Joey can write to the Church himself and ask if there is any official Church teaching on BOM geography.

2- He can consider why I, who work for BYU, would forge a letter purporting to be from the Church, in which I falsely claim the Church has no official position on a topic on which they do, in fact have an official position. He could consider further why I would be stupid enough to publish such a forgery. And he could consider why, if I were that stupid, I would be so abysmally idiotic as to publish it in a journal which is read by at least some general authorities of the Church, who would thereby be made aware of my forgery and attempt to foist my forged pseudo-teaching upon the unsuspecting Church in the name of the Church. (Remember, these general authorities could easily ask the purported writer of my forged letter--with whom they interact on a weekly, if not daily basis--if the purported writer had, in fact, actually written it to me.) Why, he might finally consider, if I had in fact cruelly forged a letter undermining such a crucial teaching of the Church, have I not be fired and even prosecuted by the Church for my obvious and blatant fraud and forgery?

[Beowulf]

Why not indeed?

Fire him henceforth!

[Guest Just Curious]

Really? I can't recall ever seeing that particular rebuttal being used on this board or any other that I've participated on.

[edited by moderator] CI and you know it, it has been used against me dozens of times on here...

Great, when you explain to me how Moses' "inspired" view that rabbits chew their cud is okay, then I'll concern myself with theoretical debates to whether or not some LDS leader did or did not pray about an issue of geography that has not relation to our spiritual welfare whatsoever.

Have you ever raised rabbits CI. Hmmm I didn't think so, we raised them for nearly 15 years. It is a very common misconception that rabbits "chew a cud". Most people familiar with animal biology (I have a degree in wildlife biology) are aware of what a cud is. When you observe rabbits for any length of time their eating habbits of items such as hay, straw, or grasses usually has them chewing it over and over very similar to a cow chewing its cud. Alas there is a difference and cow's cud comes from it, for the uninitiated, "harking up a cud" and chewing it and then swallowing it to the stomach. (very over simplified explanation). Where as the rabbit does not intitially swallow the mass to create the cud then hark it back up. However upon observation of the chewing of the food it quite closely resembles a cow chewing its cud...oh yeah did I mention we raised cattle too? And horses (not tapirs, real horses), sheep, chickens, ducks, pigeons, guineas....and all without the benefit of D&C 89, and amazingly our flocks and herds flourished. Imagine that huh !!!

[Joey]

1- Joey can write to the Church himself and ask if there is any official Church teaching on BOM geography.

Write to the First Presidency

Mssrs. Hamblin and Peterson:

Before I take the advice of the two of you, would you be so kind as to address the obvious problem with your advice?

In 1990, your fellow church brother, Ronnie Sparks, did exactly what the two of your are suggesting and wrote to the First Presidency to ask a question about the Hill Cumorah in NY and in the BOM.

The Office of the First Presidency responded with their answer in a letter that I have posted above.

The two of you have intimated quite repeatedly above that this letter is not true or accurate.

Now you are suggesting that I do the same thing as your brother Sparks did. If the the Office of the First Presidency was not truthful or accurate in answering Brother Sparks, why would you suggest that I solicit a source that cannot, obviously, be trusted?

(tis better to think before you post )

[Bill Hamblin]

The two of you have intimated quite repeatedly above that this letter is not true or accurate.

You're wrong. I think the letter was sent and it has been accurately reproduced. I simply think it was an unconsidered response.

I believe that the Church has no official policy on Book of Mormon geography. This has been repeated over and over and over by numerous Church officials in a wide range of circumstances. The fact that Church leaders disagree or say different things about it is quite consistent with my view that there is no official position. It also demonstrates that your view is wrong.

So, do you think I'm lying about the letter I recieved?

[alienward]

I believe that the Church has no official policy on Book of Mormon geography.  This has been repeated over and over and over by numerous Church officials in a wide range of circumstances.  The fact that Church leaders disagree or say different things about it is quite consistent with my view that there is no official position.  It also demonstrates that your view is wrong.

So the church has no offical policy the book took place in the Americas? That's understandable since the book places itself in the Old World anyway.

[Daniel Peterson]

1- Joey can write to the Church himself and ask if there is any official Church teaching on BOM geography.

Write to the First Presidency

Mssrs. Hamblin and Peterson:

Before I take the advice of the two of you, would you be so kind as to address the obvious problem with your advice?

In 1990, your fellow church brother, Ronnie Sparks, did exactly what the two of your are suggesting and wrote to the First Presidency to ask a question about the Hill Cumorah in NY and in the BOM.

The Office of the First Presidency responded with their answer in a letter that I have posted above.

The two of you have intimated quite repeatedly above that this letter is not true or accurate.

Now you are suggesting that I do the same thing as your brother Sparks did. If the the Office of the First Presidency was not truthful or accurate in answering Brother Sparks, why would you suggest that I solicit a source that cannot, obviously, be trusted?

(tis better to think before you post )

A course I heartily commend to you.

The first letter from the secretary of the First Presidency was an expression of a widespread and long held assumption in the Church, particularly common among those who hadn't given the topic a great deal of reflection, that the New York Cumorah is the Cumorah of the final Jaredite and Nephite battles. Presumably, upon reflection, the secretary of the First Presidency realized that, despite the commonness of the assumption and despite its venerability, there was no solid proof that it was actually true and there was no actual official Church position on the matter. Hence the content of the second letter.

This isn't very difficult to understand. If you're as successful in business as you've implied, Joey, you presumably have the capacity to understand it. Whether you have the will to understand it is, of course, a separate matter.

[Daniel Peterson]

I believe that the Church has no official policy on Book of Mormon geography.

[Bill Hamblin]

I need to warn you, in the most urgent and strenuous terms, to waste no time whatsoever attempting to have a conversation with alienward. Don't even respond. It is pointless. It will only exasperate you. In fact, causing exasperation appears to be alienward's only real goal in posting. Don't give him even the slightest encouragement.

My Dear Professor Peterson

Thanks for the excellent advice. The impudent fellow has been placed on my "do not reply" list. I shall not give him a second thought.

Sincerely

Professor Hamblin

PS It was quite gracious to bestow a knighthood upon Professor Sir Dr. Bammer, in addition to the honorary PhD.

[Confidential Informant]

[edited by moderator]

[Joey]

You're wrong. I think the letter was sent and it has been accurately reproduced. I simply think it was an unconsidered response.

That may be, but then why should I not be concerned about getting an

[Daniel Peterson]

That may be, but then why should I not be concerned about getting an

[Joey]

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.

And,

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.

Could this be the valedictorian of the John Kerry "flip flop" School?

Has brother Watson ever explained how one can miss something so bad, in whatever direction the "miss" might have been.

Does brother Sparks know about this or is he still under the impression that he received a quality answer from the First Presidency?

Who's on first anyway?

"It must be conceded that this description fits perfectly the land of Cumorah in New York, as it has been known since the visitation of Moroni to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for the hill is in the proximity of the Great Lakes and also in the land of many rivers and fountains. Moreover, the Prophet Joseph Smith himself is on record, definitely declaring the present hill called Cumorah to be the exact hill spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

Seing as how JF Smith tells us that Joseph Smith himself was "on record", should we believe him or conclude that JF Smith would lie? Could we at least afford JF SMith the same credibility with respect to his referencing to Joseph Smith as we afford Hamblin with his referencing to Bro. Watson? Is the journalistic team of JF Smith - Joseph Smith more or less credible, with respect to inspiration in their words, than the team of Hamblin - Watson. (Not to show any disrespect for either team, of course.)

[Bill Hamblin]

Joey you can stop hyperventilating. It is really very simple. The Church has no official position on BOM geography. Therefore, all members, including General Authorities, are free to believe and say what they wish on the matter. Some GAs have have believed and probaby still believe in the hemispheric theory. Others, believe in the limited theory. Therefore, some will say one thing and some another. Just as they do about the Garden Tomb vs. the Church of the Holy Sepulcher or voting democrat vs. republican. If you don't understand this by now, you never will. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it further.

[juliann]

Hmmm, who was it that said something to the effect that neurosis is the inability to accept ambiguity?

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

And,

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.

Could this be the valedictorian of the John Kerry "flip flop" School?

"A foolish consistency," as Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "is the hobgoblin of little minds." If one learns that one has been wrong, one can choose consistency or one can choose to be correct. As this thread has illustrated in a variety of ways, Joey chooses consistency.

Who's on first anyway?

Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Unless you're laughing at your own joke.

"The jest dulls its point when he who tells it is the first to laugh." (Friedrich Schiller)

Seing as how JF Smith tells us that Joseph Smith himself was "on record", should we believe him or conclude that JF Smith would lie?

In Joey's world, you're either correct, or you're lying. Joey is not correct.

Could we at least afford JF SMith the same credibility with respect to his referencing to Joseph Smith as we afford Hamblin with his referencing to Bro. Watson?

Professor Hamblin supplied a specific reference and a direct quotation. They can be evaluated. It isn't clear to what Elder Smith was referring, and, so far as you've cited him, he doesn't provide a quotation. From what I know about the subject, I do not agree that Joseph Smith specifically identified the New York Cumorah as the place of the final Nephite and Jaredite battles, and, most importantly, I'm aware of no revelation to that effect.

This has grown wearisome, Joey. If you ever find an official Church statement of an official Church position on any specific question of Book of Mormon geography, feel free to share it. Until then, though, please don't waste our time any more on this topic.

[Joey]

Mssrs. Peterson and Hamblin,

I recognize the level of frustration the two of you demonstrate in attempting to reply to the dilemma the statements from Bro. Watson have put you in. I think the issue may deal more with the worlds each of us are required to make a living within. Let me see if I can briefly demonstrate:

The

[Calm]

Seems like your first mistake is thinking that the standards of academics should mimic business standards as if the conditions they exist under are somehow comparable.

It seems that the two of you operate in a world where