Prof. Clark - BOM Archaeology?

[Daniel Peterson]

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?

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.

No problem guys. It

[Pahoran]

Professor Hamblin,

in the interests of knowing where people are coming from, you should know that Joey married a less-active Latter-day Saint who was subsequently brought back into activity in the Church.

And he resents it like mad.

Joey,

you wrote:

Forgive me Prof Hamblin, but I

[alienward]

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?

Yes, here

[Bill Hamblin]

In his latest letter Joey claims:

Clearly, I have not insinuated any of the above towards you either. If you believe I have, could you point out the specific references? I would really appreciate the opportunity to clarify. Otherwise, I think such comments just go to inflame what could otherwise be a mature conversation.

[pseudogratix]

Bill, you're obviously evil. Just get over it

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill, you're obviously evil. Just get over it 

I'm not only over it; I relish it. But I just don't like it when people expose me for what I really am. How can I make all that cash that is rolling in for my apologetic writings if people know I am a lying mercenary hack?

[Bill Hamblin]

Pahoran and Dan have explained the situation cogently, for the tenth time.

"Official position" means a statement from Scripture or by the First Presidency. (It does NOT include statements by indidvual GAs, nor the secretary of the First Presidency, nor a seminary manual.) If anyone knows of an "official position" of the Church on BOM geography, I'd love to see it.

The letter Joey cites is not one. The letter I cited is not a "official position" either. But the letters are evidence that there is no official position. Hence, different GAs and secretaries can say different things at different times, and not change the "official position" of the Church, since there is no such position.

That many general authorities have believed in the New York Cumorah or a hemispheric geography is not the least in question. I suggest Joey read Sorenson's Geography handbook, which includes numerous statements as well as a summary of different geographical theories of the BOM.

But let us, for the sake of argument, assume that Joey is right. Let us assume that the Church had an official position about the Hill Cumorah (as opposed to a majority belief), and that this position was later changed. So what? What is wrong the the Church growing and developing? Why shouldn't the Church change its position as we learn new things? How is this different than changing a position on the site of the tomb of Christ, or the site of Mt. Sinai, or whether the Hittites mentioned in the Bible are from Palestine or Anatolia? If the Book of Mormon is historical, and the Church has been, or is now mistaken about the location of some BOM events, so what?

[Bill Hamblin]

Joey has asked some varition on this question several times.

I ask this because if it was the letter from Watson that you received as the source or basis for your conclusion, then I guess it takes me back to

[Joey]

Daniel,

I appreciate your enthusiasm to constantly address this issue. I also hope we, at some point, get to hear Prof. Hamblin speak for himself with respect to the specific questions I have asked. In as much as we have neither a copy of the letter Prof. Hamblin sent to either Watson or the First Presidency (which would also be of interest to me, ie; who he specifically addressed his inquiry to), nor a copy of the full response, I have asked several questions which I believe are worthy of merit given the complete reversal of positions demonstrated by either Watson or the First Presidency. While I recognize that Hamblin

[pseudogratix]

Sigh. And some people say that I am narrowminded. Sigh.

[Calm]

Let's be completely accurate about what the moderator said:

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.

Apparently to the moderator, there were some parts of the post less well thought out than others.

[Bill Hamblin]

Joey,

I answered all your questions I could. I cannot answer questions about Watson's mindset in writting the letters, nor his intent, etc. because, unlike some anti-Mormons here, I cannot read minds. What more do you want.

Do you agree that "official position" in LDS parlance refers to a statement in scripture or publicly published by the First Presidency?

I am simply stunned that you claim I have misrepresented your accusations against me.

First, you openly doubt the letter existed: "if such letter exists"

Second, you claim that even "if such [a] letter exists" I "Misrepresented the correspondence." The real letter, if it exists, "would tell us something different than you claim." Thus you write, "I may never really no [sic] what the letter said specifically."

How much more clearly can you insinuate that I am a liar?

[Daniel Peterson]

Also, I would like to clarify again.  Am I correct that neither you nor Hamblin speak officially for the lds church or Office of the First Presidency?  I will assume so. 

Write to the First Presidency. Ask them if there is an official, binding Church position on the detailed geography of the Book of Mormon or on the location of the Nephite/Jaredite Cumorah. Let us know what they say. Tell them that FARMS routinely publishes materials that conflict with what you believe to be that official, binding Church position. I promise to inform you if we are disciplined by the Church subsequent to your letter.

This is a serious question.  I would love to have a serious reply.  It goes directly to the credibility of the second Watson letter.  If Watson now issues a

[Bill Hamblin]

My Dear Professor Peterson,

Is is really possible that the only positive result of all of this ruckus is that it has revealed the fact that everyone in the Church understands "official position" as referring to public statements by the First Presidency as a whole, but that Joey has his own idiosyncratic understanding of the term to refer to private statements by secretaries of General Authorities? Is THAT the ultimate advance in knowledge and understanding we have obtained? What foolishness possessed me to enter into this discussion? I beg you, in the future, please warn me away from such mind-numbing exercises in futility.

Yours dumbfoundedly,

Professor Hamblin

[Daniel Peterson]

My Dear Professor Hamblin:

It really does, as you say, seem to come down to Joey's eccentric belief, as a hostile non-member, that official doctrine for the Church can be established by a letter from a Church secretary to an individual, in such a fashion that the general membership learns about it only when it's leaked to the Internet.

I agree that further interaction with Joey is futile. However, there are other places on this board that do merit occasional attention, and I hope that you will continue to look in from time to time.

Yours in shared astonishment,

Professor Peterson

[Doc]

Dear Professors Peterson and Hamblin;

I am glad that you have finally come to your senses. I had gone through this same futile exchange with "Joey" on an Evangelical Message Board and came away with the same exasperated feeling myself.

They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. I hope you both have learned your lesson.

Sincerely,

Doc

~

[Bill Hamblin]

My Dear Professor Doc,

If I had learned my lesson, I wouldn't be replying to your email. (This is not to say it is crazy to reply to you, but that it is crazy to have looked in on this thread at all.)

Had you explained the "official position" issue to Joey in your discussion?

Sincerely

Professor Hamblin

[brugsch]

My Dear Professors Peterson and Hamblin,

Congratualtions on your new discovery! Perhaps you could present this at the next American Academy of Religion meetings. I am sure that there it could get even less attention than it does here.

H. Brugsch

[Guest Just Curious]

Its amazing to me how inquiring can be ridiculed when it causes conflict.

[pseudogratix]

Its amazing to me how inquiring can be ridiculed when it causes conflict.

It's not so amazing to me how clear and reasonable explanations can be ridiculed when they seem to conflict to one's own preconceived notions.

[Bill Hamblin]

Congratualtions on your new discovery! Perhaps you could present this at the next American Academy of Religion meetings. I am sure that there it could get even less attention than it does here.

My Dear Professor Brugsch,

Thank you for your felicitations. I'm thinking Nobel prize, perhaps.

By the way, one should never overestimate the standards of the AAR.

Sincerely,

Professor Hamblin

[Guest Just Curious]

It's amazing to me how clear and reasonable explanations can be ridiculed when they seem to cause conflict to one's own preconceived notions.

Its amazing that some people think that their clear and reasonable explanation is clear and reasonable, and the only one. It is my experience that when there are two sides to a story, more often than not the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Inquiring minds want to know...oh wait someone already uses that tag line...oops

[Guest Just Curious]

Thank you for your felicitations. I'm thinking Nobel prize, perhaps.

Do they have one for humility now???

[Bill Hamblin]

Do they have one for humility now???

Smiley face = joke.

It was ironic hyperbole intended to emphasize the banality of the ultimate results of our interaction with Joey.

[pseudogratix]

Its amazing that some people think that their clear and reasonable explanation is clear and reasonable, and the only one.  It is my experience that when there are two sides to a story, more often than not the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Sigh. Actually, that is the more often than not the position of us evil mermens. We allow all sorts of explanations. It is our distracters that typically are so completely inflexible and fundamental in their approach that they insist that the only position we LDS can hold is black or white.