Daniel Peterson Posted October 24, 2004 Posted October 24, 2004 Joey, when you can supply actual evidence -- as opposed, for instance, to your dubious inferences from a leaked private letter -- of an official statement expressing or alluding to an official Church position on the geography of the Book of Mormon, I will be the first to acknowledge that evidence. In the meantime, absent any reason to believe that such an official Church position exists (and, in fact, in view of the explicit evidence against it), you really have no case at all.In the "Non Profit" world of scholarship, that's called by various names (e.g., expulsion from graduate school, rejection by academic publishers, hostile and devastating objections at academic symposia, failure to achieve tenure, flipping hamburgers at McDonald's, etc.).
Joey Posted October 25, 2004 Author Posted October 25, 2004 Professor Hamblin,If I may, could I ask you a couple of questions about your article published at FARMS relative to the letters issued by Watson? Unfortunately, Daniel Peterson while eager to refer me to your article, seems to dismiss my follow up questions as inappropriate. As one who is called to explain statements, decisions, and be accountable for anything I author in print with some regularity, I find this a very natural and responsible. As I have alluded to above, I don
Guest Just Curious Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 What experience do you have with professional scholarly standards, Joey? (If you wish, you may answer my inquiry with a brief bibliography of your academic publications.)Based on Joeys accomplishments in the field of Business I would wager a guess that his experience with professional scholarly standards are much more than those that Joseph Smith had. In all honesty have you questioned everything that Joseph Smith said and did in the same way you have questioned Joey? One reason for not drawing such a conclusion, if Professor Hamblin doesn't reply to you, is the very real possibility that he might be unaware of your questions.Given your close relationship with Prof. Hamblin maybe you could persuade him to answer just this one last time, since you are aware of the questions. I would be nice to get his side of the story on these questions to answer the curiosity some of us have in this thread..
Daniel Peterson Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 For the record, I believe you are in total "Damage Control" at this stage.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Before I answer your questions, Joey, I need you to answer two of mine.1- Do you believe I really received the letter I cite, or do you think I am lying or forged the letter.2- Do you believe that I am honest and sincere in my beliefs, or do you believe I am a fraud?
Daniel Peterson Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Based on Joeys accomplishments in the field of Business I would wager a guess that his experience with professional scholarly standards are much more than those that Joseph Smith had. In all honesty have you questioned everything that Joseph Smith said and did in the same way you have questioned Joey?I guess I just don't see much connection between success in business and experience with professional scholarly standards.But what on earth does Joseph Smith have to do with this? Joey has suggested that, since he's some sort of businessman, his standards of documentation, evidence, and analysis are higher than mine because I'm merely a publishing academic at a university. So it seems reasonable to ask what he might know about the standards of academic argument and publication. Whether Joseph Smith knew anything at all about what it would take to publish, say, in the International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies or the Encyclopedia of the Qur
Joey Posted October 25, 2004 Author Posted October 25, 2004 Before I answer your questions, Joey, I need you to answer two of mine.1- Do you believe I really received the letter I cite, or do you think I am lying or forged the letter.2- Do you believe that I am honest and sincere in my beliefs, or do you believe I am a fraud? Prof. Hamblin,Question #1. As I have stated previously, the statements referring to you "lying" about the letter from Watson have been originated and instigated by Daniel Peterson, in an attempt I presume, to shift focus from a factual conversation. I believe if you go back through this thread you will see that is clearly documented. Also, as I have previously stated: If you say you received a letter from Watson, I have no reason to doubt you. Question #2."Fraud" is, or can be, a very deragatory description of someone or their works and I would certainly never want you to think I had characterized you with such a description. I do not know what all of your beliefs are at this point but if you tell me "you believe" something, I would have to take it at face value. I may want to ask you "why" you believe something to see if it is based on fact, reason or just emotion.I have no problem stating that I thought your article, referred to above, was biased and I have given reasons for my conclusion. But I also believe that the purpose and nature of FARMS is to promote/support "a faith or belief", and that in journalistic standards, "bias" may be required over "objectivity" for the agenda of FARMS. So I guess I recognize that you may not have had a choice to present an objective view if you wanted FARMS to publish your article.I hope that helps but if you would like me to elaborate further, please just ask. It may, however, take me time to get back. But if you ask, I will.
Daniel Peterson Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 As I have stated previously, the statements referring to you "lying" about the letter from Watson have been originated and instigated by Daniel Peterson, in an attempt I presume, to shift focus from a factual conversation. I believe if you go back through this thread you will see that is clearly documented. It didn't (and doesn't) seem like such a stretch, when Professor Hamblin supplies a quotation from a letter explicitly denying that the Church has an official position on either Book of Mormon geography in general or the location of the original Hill Cumorah in particular, and you question whether the position expressed in the letter is really that of the declared author, the secretary to the First Presidency.You didn't seem particularly eager to explain that you weren't actually accusing Professor Hamblin of lying until he showed up and confronted you about it.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 required over "objectivity" for the agenda of FARMS. So I guess I recognize that you may not have had a choice to present an objective view if you wanted FARMS to publish your article.Sorry, wrong answer. You are implying that I am under pressure to lie. Don't you get it? Why should I possibly want to have a discussion with a person who assumes, a priori, that my answers will be insincere because of some nefarious pressure. I further am extremely dubious that you, or any other anti-Mormon here (or anyone for that matter) is objective. You are obviously unfamiliar with the vast discussoin on the matter.I'll answer your questions, then I'm done with you.1- I solicited the letter. 2- I may have seen the Sparks letter (or something similar) but I was responding to anti-Mormon claims in general.3- Unlike some anti-Mormons on this board, I can't read minds, so I can't tell you why different letters on the topic were sent. My belief is that it is because the Church has no official position on BOM geography, and therefore, different people believe different things, and those different beliefs are reflected in the letters, statements, etc.
alienward Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 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.You shouldn
Calm Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 So I guess I recognize that you may not have had a choice to present an objective view if you wanted FARMS to publish your article.How sweet. Professor Hamblin is not a liar, but doesn't have enough personal integrity to stand up for the truth.
Confidential Informant Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Joey,According to Peter, the "official" position of the Church is that the global flood actually happened. (1 Pet. 3:18-19). However, modern DNA scientist, and geological and archeological evidence conclusively prove this is not true.How do you resolve this problem?C.I.
Joey Posted October 25, 2004 Author Posted October 25, 2004 Prof. Hamblin,First off, let me say that I sense a very obvious
Calm Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 I sincerely hope, for the sake of the students, this is not indicative of the environment you create as a professor at BYU.I think any professor anywhere would have an issue with a student that suggested he was less than forthright in his position for whatever reason (fear of losing his salary, status, etc.) I have never seen a professor encourage his students to accuse him of low personal integrity.
Joey Posted October 25, 2004 Author Posted October 25, 2004 Calmoriah,If your responses are merely to have your name on this thread, fine. If you are trying to demonstrate a factual point could you please provide the source. If not, could you concentrate your time on the post about your favorite movie.
Calm Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 I don't have a favorite movie.I find your 'subtle' slams at various posters' integrity worthy of commentary.
Daniel Peterson Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 OK Daniel, you can add your commentary now!Thank you. If you ever have any actual basis for your claim that the Church holds or has held an official position on any element of Book of Mormon geography, please feel free to share it.In the meantime, your peripheral ruminations on hostile classroom environments, the lack of character in various posters, and the superior standards of evidence, analysis, and documentation in business (as opposed to those expected of mere servile academics) have been the stuff of which dreams are made.
mormon fool Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Can I comment, too?One issue appears to be Watson's credibility. Some options:If we put zero weight on both of Watson's letters, we are left with no official geography and no official statement on not having an official geography. In this case we are free to analyze "the next best things" like statements of church leaders, close readings of the Book of Mormon, and correlations found from archaeological methods. Church members are free to come to their own conclusions.An official statement would be necessary for an official geography. The lack of one is sufficient to show that there isn't an official geography.If we credit Watson's first letter and not the second, then we are can still question how official it is. We notice that this information does not trace itself to a publicized revelation given to a Prophet or to a definitive scientific finding, and such an extraordinary claim of a definitive geography would require such.There is a way to credit both letters by allowing Watson to become more informed of the relevant facts and revising his conclusion. Then we have a model whereby we can deal with this information. Newspapers retract and update statements all the time. It would be irresponsible for someone to cite the earlier article when a correction is available. The same can't be said for the other way around.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 I think if you are really sincere about promoting open dialogue, you need to avoid creating environments of hostility with sweeping characterizations of all non-lds posters.Oh Brother. This is the KKK blaming the Blacks for resisting the lynchmob. (By the way, I specifically said "many" not "all.")Have I insinuated that you are a liar?Have I insinuated that you are a mercenary hack?Have I questioned your character?No.Since I've become confused by the degeneration of this discussion to your fantasizing about my character flaws, I've forgotten what all the fuss is about.So I really don't recall. Have you presented any evidence whatsoever that the Church has an official position on BOM geography? If so, could you please repeat it for me?
alienward Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 And President Romney's passing mention of events he understandably assumed to have occurred on that site (since virtually every other communicant Latter-day Saint has made the same assumption over the past 175 years) represents neither a revelation -- he wasn't claiming one, and, as a counselor in the First Presidency, didn't have the authority to propound one as official doctrine for the Church anyway -- nor does it reflect an official statement of the Church. Trying to call a General Conference speech by a prophet printed in an
Calm Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 In the meantime, your peripheral ruminations on hostile classroom environments, the lack of character in various posters, and the superior standards of evidence, analysis, and documentation in business (as opposed to those expected of mere servile academics) have been the stuff of which dreams are made. Let me save Joey the time---Dan, if this is the best you feel like doing, then you should be concentrating on your post about your favorite movie.
Confidential Informant Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Joey, Still waiting for your explanation.1. bible says flood was global and only 8 people survived.2. God's prophet/Apostles says that this is the "official" version of that event (1 Pet. 3:18-20)3. Archeology, Geology, physics and DNA science all agree this cannot be so.4. How do you reconcile?C.I.
Joey Posted October 25, 2004 Author Posted October 25, 2004 Prof. Hamblin,Thanks for your follow up. I
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.