Prof. Clark - BOM Archaeology?

[Guest Just Curious]

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

Where is that seerstone when I need to translate...of course some people actually do talk like that...I guess...Oh by the way if it went over your head...mine was a joke too...sorry about that if you got insulted..

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

There aren't two sides to this story, Mr. Curious. If there were, Joey would have at least a shred of plausible evidence on his side.

There is no more an official Church position on the geography of the Book of Mormon than there is a giant invisible rabbit holding the Moon up in the sky.

Joey has had plenty of opportunity to supply something, anything at all, directly indicating the existence of such an official position. He has offered nothing.

His case flounders on two fundamental points:

(1) The lack of any positive evidence to support it (i.e., no official Church statement of an official Church position on the geography of the Book of Mormon).

(2) The existence of negative evidence that refutes it (e.g., a 1993 letter from the secretary to the First Presidency expressly denying that the Church has an official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon, which more than cancels out Joey's tenuous inference from an earlier letter written by the same person, and the fact that employees at Brigham Young University are manifestly free to publicly and repeatedly and in print disagree with what Joey claims to be the Church's official position on Book of Mormon geography).

The first point is lethal. The second point is lethal. If Joey's claim continues its mindless advance after not one but two ordinarily fatal blows, zombie metaphors become inescapable.

[Guest Just Curious]

Just out of curiosity (pardon the intended pun) would you say that everything in the temple ceremony is church doctrine or not church doctrine?

[Guest Just Curious]

The first point is lethal.

I think if you will review the very first letter stating the position and read it carefully you will more than likely understand how one can become confused on the issue...

Since no copy of the second letter has been produced, he is attempting to find out what caused the second letter to be written....surely you as a scholar would highly question if someone you had suspicions about wrote a letter saying one thing then 3 years later totally recanted that letter...would you not ask yourself what has caused this to happen ....if you were being objective of course

[Daniel Peterson]

Just out of curiosity (pardon the intended pun) would you say that everything in the temple ceremony is church doctrine or not church doctrine?

Your everything makes me nervous. But I don't discuss details of temple ordinances on Internet message boards.

The ordinances of the temple, however, are as official as anything can possibly be in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Guest johnny_cat]

Just out of curiosity (pardon the intended pun) would you say that everything in the temple ceremony is church doctrine or not church doctrine?

Maybe I'm heretical, but I'd say no. It has not, to my knowledge, been canonized. That said, it is also clearly approved by the normal correlation process and can thus be considered consistent with scripture.

[Guest Just Curious]

Your everything makes me nervous

.

And maybe you would care to clarify why the word "everything" makes you nervous...please tell me Dan !!

[Calm]

All or nothing, black or white....

Fundamentalistic assumptions. No wonder they make him nervous. Why does it have to be everything or nothing?

[Calm]

JC, as to what caused the second letter to be written, Dr. Hamblin clarified this already in this post:

Bill Hamblin Posted: Oct 25 2004, 08:57 AM

[Daniel Peterson]

I think if you will review the very first letter stating the position and read it carefully you will more than likely understand how one can become confused on the issue...

I agree that Joey is confused on the issue. The 1993 letter was introduced into the discussion as a remedy for his confusion, but his is a very stubborn case and plainly resistant to cure. Unfortunately, doctors do lose patients. The cure rate is not 100%. We simply have to move on.

Since no copy of the second letter has been produced,

A direct quotation from that second letter appears in Professor Hamblin's article, where it has been featured for over a decade. It is clear, and it expressly refutes Joey's claim.

he is attempting to find out what caused the second letter to be written....surely you as a scholar would highly question if someone you had suspicions about wrote a letter saying one thing then 3 years later totally recanted that letter...would you not ask yourself what has caused this to happen ....if you were being objective of course

It has little if anything to do with "objectivity." It's a matter of relevance. The 1993 letter is consistent with the Church's longstanding failure to state an official position on Book of Mormon geography. Joey's inference from the 1990 letter is inconsistent with the overall picture, though not with ours. (We have repeatedly acknowledged what the 1990 letter actually says -- namely that Latter-day Saints have, over the years, overwhelmingly believed the New York Cumorah to be the Book of Mormon Cumorah.) We have no special knowledge of Michael Watson's state of mind in the early 1990s. We cannot read his mind, particularly not at a distance and not in the past. If Joey wants to investigate such questions, he can write to Michael Watson precisely as easily as we can. They are his questions, and not ours. They are not relevant to the specific issue of whether or not the Church has an official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon. We do not see the two letters as contradictory: Since a common teaching is not the same thing as an official teaching, it is quite possible to affirm the existence of the first while simultaneously denying the existence of the latter.

We are content to note that nothing in the 1990 letter conflicts with our position, while the 1993 letter directly contradicts Joey's.

[Daniel Peterson]

And maybe you would care to clarify why the word "everything" makes you nervous...please tell me Dan !!

I could, but I won't. I would have to discuss details of temple ordinances, and I believe that I've already made it clear that I don't discuss details of temple ordinances on Internet message boards. I would freely discuss them elsewhere.

[Bill Hamblin]

Oh by the way if it went over your head...mine was a joke too...sorry about that if you got insulted.

I got your joke.

I responded with a joke.

But, alas, I cannot hear the laughter.

[Confidential Informant]

Just out of curiosity (pardon the intended pun) would you say that everything in the temple ceremony is church doctrine or not church doctrine?

<Klaxons sounding>

ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT

SUBJECT CHANGE AHEAED

ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT

PLEASE BE AWARE THAT HAVING FOUND INSUPERABLE RESISTANCE, JUST CURIOUS IS NOW CHANGING COURSE. RED HERRINGS POSSIBLE, NEXT SEVERAL POSTS. WATCH FOR STRAWMEN AHEAD. IRRELEVANT ANALOGIES AND INANE COMPARISONS A PROBABILITY.

ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT

This broadcast has been a service of Internet Anti-Mormon Tactic and Training Alert System. We now return you to your regularly scheduled silliness.

[Guest Just Curious]

PLEASE BE AWARE THAT HAVING FOUND INSUPERABLE RESISTANCE, JUST CURIOUS IS NOW CHANGING COURSE. RED HERRINGS POSSIBLE, NEXT SEVERAL POSTS. WATCH FOR STRAWMEN AHEAD. IRRELEVANT ANALOGIES AND INANE COMPARISONS A PROBABILITY

Please explain what I found resistance to? Obviously you are seeing something I don't. Again don't give up your day job to become a mind reader...

[Guest Just Curious]

I could, but I won't. I would have to discuss details of temple ordinances, and I believe that I've already made it clear that I don't discuss details of temple ordinances on Internet message boards. I would freely discuss them elsewhere.

Well you do have my personal email address...please feel free to clarify there if it is acceptable...

[Daniel Peterson]

I could, but I won't. I would have to discuss details of temple ordinances, and I believe that I've already made it clear that I don't discuss details of temple ordinances on Internet message boards. I would freely discuss them elsewhere.

Well you do have my personal email address...please feel free to clarify there if it is acceptable...

It is not.

[Guest Just Curious]

Your everything makes me nervous.

Personal Journal Entry..JC, (right next to entries of visions) Caused the great and noble Dan Peterson to become nervous. This perhaps may be a first, or second or third in his lifetime...now I can die a fulfulled man !!!

[Guest Just Curious]

OK DP so your understanding is that there is not anything taught in the temple during the ceremonies or ordinances that would not be "official doctrine" is that a correct statement.

[Daniel Peterson]

OK DP so your understanding is that there is not anything taught in the temple during the ceremonies or ordinances that would not be "official doctrine" is that a correct statement.

What part of my refusal to discuss this topic on an Internet message board do you not understand?

[Bill Hamblin]

What part of my refusal to discuss this topic on an Internet message board do you not understand?

My Dear Professor Peterson,

Question framing is an important part of historical analysis. An easier question to answer would be: what part of what you have said anywhere HAS he understood?

Sincerely,

Professor Hamblin

[Guest Just Curious]

You said:

The ordinances of the temple, however, are as official as anything can possibly be in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I said just attempting to clarify my understanding of yours statement...

OK DP so your understanding is that there is not anything taught in the temple during the ceremonies or ordinances that would not be "official doctrine" is that a correct statement.

I am familiar with the oaths and covenants of the temple, having been in at least 8 different ones and gone through the temple more times than I can count...however nothing I have said or asked violates any oaths or covenants or is a question that cannot be asked outside the temple. A simple yes or no to my above question would have been more than satisfactory. Perhaps we could have Dunamis tell us if anything I have said or asked in this line of questioning violates the rules....

What part of my refusal to discuss this topic on an Internet message board do you not understand?

The part where you make a statement then I ask you if my understanding of your statement is correct !!!

[Guest Just Curious]

Question framing is an important part of historical analysis. An easier question to answer would be: what part of what you have said anywhere HAS he understood?

More than your obviously limited understanding can comprehend....

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm pleased that Dunamis has rules regarding this. However, I have my own principles on it, as well. A simple yes or no would not be "more than satisfactory." Your question is, as calmoriah correctly observed, too black and white, too either/or. Your understanding of my position is not correct. But for me to explain, on this message board or even in a private e-mail to you, why and how it is so would be for me to violate my own sense of propriety and sacredness regarding the temple. I will not do it. I've said this four times now. I trust that I won't be required to say it a fifth time.

[Zeta-Flux]

Just Curious,

It is really really annoying reading your posts. Perhaps you just don't realize that you almost never make a point, or that the point you are making is often changing the subject.

Let us take a look at the current situation, and maybe it will help you reevalutate your posting style. In this thread, Dan Peterson has repeatedly explained why Joey's letter does not establish official doctrine. (1) Because it isn't even from a general authority, it comes from a secretary. (2) It was in the form of a personal letter, not a Church-wide announcement. (3) It wasn't based on a previous Church-wide announcement of doctrine, or other official venues (such as the temple). (4) This secretary either changed his mind, or clarified, in a later letter, that the first letter was not official doctrine. (5) There has been no disciplinary actions of those who 'preach' that there is no official doctrine on this issue. (6) It's been pointed out that apostles and leaders and secretaries and BYU employees are welcome to speculate on unrevealed subjects (and so, further, the lack of any documentation from any complete quorum of the Church shows that there is no official doctrine). Furthermore, there has been some disagreement in opinion among the brethren on this topic.

To my mind, this stuff is pretty air-tight. And further, no one seems to respond to these issues. Instead, they change the subject, or ignore them. You too did not respond to them. Rather, you brought up the temple ceremony in the hopes (I assume) of showing that Peterson's definition of "official doctrine" was incomplete. That it didn't include, for example, the temple. And, with this notch in your belt, you'd further say something like "And, if you were wrong on your definition of 'official' doctrine, you're wrong on the rest too." Or something up this alley.

Do you see the problem with this line of attack? Do you see how you are not trying to UNDERSTAND what we mean by official doctrine, and instead of pointing out that Peterson might want to ammend his definition (or explain how the temple ceremony already fits under this definition) you seek to find fault. You don't ask for evidence that Peterson's definition is actually the official definition (which, frankly, it is, and there is tons of support for it).

I hope this helps you reevaluate your posting style, and perhaps see why so many here find your posts a little lacking in substance, thought, desire to understand, and other qualities.

Best,

Zeta-Flux

[Guest Just Curious]

I have my own principles on it, as well. A simple yes or no would not be "more than satisfactory." Your question is, as calmoriah correctly observed, too black and white, too either/or. Your understanding of my position is not correct.

No that is where you are wrong DP. A simple yes or no would be all that is needed. Either I understand your answer or I don't. It is not nearly as complicated as you would like to make me believe it is. Yes I am a pretty black and white person. I see things as true or false. When we don't know for sure I simply say "we don't know for sure". However when the evidence is clear and irrefutable then that is how it is. If you are not that way then fine that is your business. I don't ridicule you or insult you because of it do I?

Now for Zeta Flux...

It is really really annoying reading your posts.

Here's a solution for you...don't read my posts then ...

Perhaps you just don't realize that you almost never make a point, or that the point you are making is often changing the subject.

Perhaps you should realize that I am rarely here to make a point, many of my posts are for my own desire to gain knowledge on the particular topic I am interested in at that time...you see Zeta, most of you people are so paranoid that someone is out to trick them or trap them or make them say one tiny little thing wrong that you can't see the forest for the trees!!!

Let us take a look at the current situation, and maybe it will help you reevalutate your posting style. In this thread, Dan Peterson has repeatedly explained why Joey's letter does not establish official doctrine. (1) Because it isn't even from a general authority, it comes from a secretary. (2) It was in the form of a personal letter, not a Church-wide announcement. (3) It wasn't based on a previous Church-wide announcement of doctrine, or other official venues (such as the temple). (4) This secretary either changed his mind, or clarified, in a later letter, that the first letter was not official doctrine. (5) There has been no disciplinary actions of those who 'preach' that there is no official doctrine on this issue. (6) It's been pointed out that apostles and leaders and secretaries and BYU employees are welcome to speculate on unrevealed subjects (and so, further, the lack of any documentation from any complete quorum of the Church shows that there is no official doctrine). Furthermore, there has been some disagreement in opinion among the brethren on this topic.

Let us indeed look at that situation..I had what 2 posts or maybe 3 in that whole thread with the focus on the letters and the primary focus of my posts (which were extremely short) was to try to explain a little of the confusion Joey was having...I did not debate any of the topics or questions flying back and forth between Joey, DP and Hamblin...oh and by the way...apology accepted for accusing me of something I did not do !!

To my mind, this stuff is pretty air-tight. And further, no one seems to respond to these issues. Instead, they change the subject, or ignore them. You too did not respond to them.

Please cite an example...

Rather, you brought up the temple ceremony in the hopes (I assume) of showing that Peterson's definition of "official doctrine" was incomplete. That it didn't include, for example, the temple.

Please go back and read the post, I did not mention Petersons name in it at all. Here I will put it up for you..."

Just out of curiosity (pardon the intended pun) would you say that everything in the temple ceremony is church doctrine or not church doctrine?

Where do you see Petersons name? I put the post up there because I feel it is a legitimate question in my mind and I wanted the opinions of the posters on the board who would be knowledgable in such things...is that a crime, a sin, a trick, a trap? Please get over your paranoia

And, with this notch in your belt, you'd further say something like "And, if you were wrong on your definition of 'official' doctrine, you're wrong on the rest too." Or something up this alley.

Can you cite me one single instance of me doing this in any thread...NO ...I have not done it and would not do it. I find it continually amazing of the baseless accusations you keep throwing up against me. Are you sure your name isn't John Kerry?

Do you see the problem with this line of attack?

No I don't because unlike you I do not have the ....question = attack mentality.

Do you see how you are not trying to UNDERSTAND what we mean by official doctrine,

I am doing precisely what you accuse me of not doing

and instead of pointing out that Peterson might want to ammend his definition (or explain how the temple ceremony already fits under this definition) you seek to find fault. You don't ask for evidence that Peterson's definition is actually the official definition (which, frankly, it is, and there is tons of support for it).

See there you go again...accusing me of a falsehood..by golly man you really are a piece of work. Where did I point out to Peterson he might want to ammend his definition...show me or offer a public apology for these continued false allegations you keep making.

I hope this helps you reevaluate your posting style, and perhaps see why so many here find your posts a little lacking in substance, thought, desire to understand, and other qualities.

Best,

Zeta-Flux

I too hope my continued showing of you totally misrepresenting me will help you to reevaluate your posting style to be truthful in the future instead of throwing around allegations that have no basis in fact in order to smear someones character...