Prof. Clark - BOM Archaeology?

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

We're talking, are we not?, about my view -- that's my view, as in me and mine -- of the status, as doctrine, of all of the portions of the ordinances of the temple.

That was the subject. My view. Mine. As in me. Not as in you.

I have declined to tell you what my view is.

So how on earth do you know, how on earth can you know, that "a simple yes or no would be all that is needed" to accurately represent my position? How can you possibly know that "It is not nearly as complicated as you would like to make me believe it is"?

We're talking about my position on this matter, are we not? Which you don't know, because I haven't told you.

I have told you, of course, that a simple "yes or no" would be inadequate for me to accurately answer your question about my view.

And you're disagreeing with me? About my position? Of which I've told you nothing?

Am I on Candid Camera?

[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.

This was the question...I asked you if it was a correct statement...it is either correct or incorrect is it not?

We're talking, are we not?, about my view -- that's my view, as in me and mine -- of the status, as doctrine, of all of the portions of the ordinances of the temple.

That was the subject. My view. Mine. As in me. Not as in you.

I have declined to tell you what my view is.

So how on earth do you know, how on earth can you know, that "a simple yes or no would be all that is needed" to accurately represent my position? How can you possibly know that "It is not nearly as complicated as you would like to make me believe it is"?

We're talking about my position on this matter, are we not? Which you don't know, because I haven't told you.

I have told you, of course, that a simple "yes or no" would be inadequate for me to accurately answer your question about my view.

And you're disagreeing with me? About my position? Of which I've told you nothing?

Am I on Candid Camera?

Perhaps you are again reading something into a question that simply isn't there... I realize you would like to elaborate on your answer however you have repeatedly said as a matter of principle you would not so I phrased the question as delicately as I could to further my understanding. I am not disagreeing with your position, of which I have told you have told me nothing...can you tell me where I said I disagree with your position...you it is getting old when people continually put words into my mouth that never were there in the first place...quit trying to be a mind reader...

[Daniel Peterson]

I just told you, Mr. Curious. You say that a simple yes or no would suffice to answer your question. I said it would not. I said my position cannot be reduced to an either/or, that it is too complex for that. You say it isn't. Now you disagree that you've been disagreeing with me.

This is ridiculous.

It's even more ridiculous than the ridiculous exchange with Joey. But it isn't going to go on as long. I'm done with it.

If you want to go on beating this dead horse, do so. I won't be replying. However, in your favor I have to say that you seem to have killed the thread with this nonsense. If only Joey will have the good judgment not to reappear, we'll be finished.

[Bill Hamblin]

I just told you, Mr. Curious. You say that a simple yes or no would suffice to answer your question. I said it would not. I said my position cannot be reduced to an either/or, that it is too complex for that. You say it isn't. Now you disagree that you've been disagreeing with me.

My Dear Professor Peterson,

Aren't you aware that a fundamental assumption of anti-Mormonism is anti-Mormons know what Mormons really believe, while Mormons don't know what they really believe.

There is an important corollary to this principle: it is that anti-Mormons know what any individual Mormon believes better than that individual himself.

This may help to explain some otherwise inexplicable behavior on the Board.

Ever Helpfully yours,

Professor Hamblin

[aznative]

Smooth Dr. Hamblin. Just sssmmmooottthhh. Any smoother, it would go down as smooth as an R.C. Cola.

[Guest Just Curious]

I just told you, Mr. Curious. You say that a simple yes or no would suffice to answer your question. I said it would not. I said my position cannot be reduced to an either/or, that it is too complex for that. You say it isn't. Now you disagree that you've been disagreeing with me.

Whatever...I simply asked if a statement was correct or not. You cannot tell me if it is correct or not without going into a long winded explanation..that is what is ridiculous. If I ask you if MY understanding of your statement is correct or incorrect I am not asking for your position I am asking if my understanding is correct..

If you want to go on beating this dead horse

,

Just to qualify, we do mean HORSE and not tapir correct???

Aren't you aware that a fundamental assumption of anti-Mormonism is anti-Mormons know what Mormons really believe, while Mormons don't know what they really believe.

There is an important corollary to this principle: it is that anti-Mormons know what any individual Mormon believes better than that individual himself

.

Once again Bill your insight is less than stellar...perhaps you would like to sit down with my stake president and convince him I am not a mormon and moreso convince him I am anti-mormon. You are welcome to do that, we usually sit with his wife and children most Sundays at sacrement meeting...I will chalk up your above statement to a temporary condition that apologist get when they try to label someone who they don't know...its called "hoof in mouth disease"

[Guest Just Curious]

I just looked back on one of my prior posts and see I made an error...I said the following...

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 I should have said and what I was thinking was this:

Let me rephrase your answer to see if my understanding of your answer is correct.. 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.

However even though I was thinking it I did not put it in writing...shame on me! I have now corrected my post so that it will be more clear as to what I was thinking. I apologize to Dan for the misunderstanding....however Dan you need not reply as your previous posts have stated you won't reply anymore on this topic, I did however want to clear the air so to speak.

[Daniel Peterson]

I just looked back on one of my prior posts and see I made an error...I said the following...

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 I should have said and what I was thinking was this:

Let me rephrase your answer to see if my understanding of your answer is correct.. 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.

However even though I was thinking it I did not put it in writing...shame on me! I have now corrected my post so that it will be more clear as to what I was thinking. I apologize to Dan for the misunderstanding....however Dan you need not reply as your previous posts have stated you won't reply anymore on this topic, I did however want to clear the air so to speak.

I received your private message, Just Curious, and am responding to it here.

First of all, don't forget the either/or character of your first question on this topic, posted at 11:28 today on this thread:

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

I simply couldn't answer that one. I can't say that everything in the temple ceremony is church doctrine, and I can't say that nothing in the temple ceremony is church doctrine. (You probably needed to formulate your question more precisely, because it's ambiguous.) My answer would lie between those two extremes, but, outside of the temple itself, I would never tell you where or be specific.

The spirit of your first demand colored the reception of your second, even in its amended and somewhat improved subsequent version: Your request that I approve or disapprove your summation of my understanding (or of your understanding of my understanding -- it really doesn't matter which) as "there is not anything taught in the temple during the ceremonies or ordinances that would not be 'official doctrine'" would require, if I were to answer it and to answer it adequately -- that I enter into an enumeration of things that I will not enumerate.

I don't know what you think is being "taught in the temple during the ceremonies or ordinances," and, so I don't want to give whatever notions you may have on that topic my endorsement. It's very possible that our views differ on this matter.

I don't see everything in the temple as "doctrinal" at all, but my view of what is doctrinal and your view of what is doctrinal may differ. (You may have noticed that we view things quite differently.) Everything that is doctrinal in the temple I accept as "official doctrine." Everything that isn't doctrinal, I take as official, but not as doctrine. There is nothing that I see in the temple that is not "official."

And that's why I don't feel comfortable saying that there is "not anything" that is not "official doctrine." If I agree to that, my answer may be misleading. But if I deny it, my answer may be more misleading. I could explain the specifics of my answer, but I won't. So I would prefer not to discuss the topic. And I've said so. This is the fifth time.

[smac97]

I came across this discussion via RfM, where thy are currently crowing about Joey's blistering deconstruction of that lying hack, Bill Hamblin, and his footnotes.

I can't help but quote, however, the following post from that board:

Subject:

[Daniel Peterson]

Funny! And please note the suggestion that Professor Hamblin and I invented the 1993 Michael Watson letter. There is, it seems, no limit to our criminal villainy.

[Beowulf]

Well OF COURSE you invented the letter.

What other explanation could there possibly be?

(That Bro. Watson did not come storming in a rage down to BYU campus back in 1993 to demand to know why his name was used without his knowledge in a FARMS publication just goes to show that he was part of the deception... Wait a minute. If he agreed to the deception then he agreed to the content, and the Church really DOES agree with Dr. Hamblin. No, that can't be right. I thought the whole argument was that Bro. Watson did NOT agree with Dr. Hamblin. Now I'm REALLY confused.)

Yes indeed.

Beowulf

[juliann]

How bizarre....they were counting on the thread being deleted for some weird reason. Their accuracy rate has not improved since that boner.

[aznative]

Yes they were believing that the thread was going to be deleted so that the 'truth' of Boss Peterson and Boss Hamblins 'bumbling shenanigans' would not be laid bare for the whole world to scutinize.

However I do recall reading a thread started by Mary Ann Benson about a crazy 'ex-mo' house party. And how she was so enthralled with the lady who took her top off.

FREAKS.