Non-Lds Scholars Speak Out Against Meldrum

[Daniel Peterson]

I didn't say that.

Then what, exactly, are you trying to say?

Since I haven't access to the book you referenced, perhaps you can provide a single salient First presidency quote that clarifies what is meant by the 1909 declaration. If I am not understanding doctrine, a clear, concise first presidency stating what I have amiss in my understanding of the 1909 statement would be much appreciated.

You're as free to get and read the book as anybody else. I don't have the book with me where I am. Moreover, I'm heading out the door in just a few minutes, and this is, anyway, a work day for me.

[BatCreekCrazy]

Then what, exactly, are you trying to say?

The 1909 was an example of official statements made by the first presidency, which still lead to ambiguity about evolution. I believe the statement is pretty clear that man did not evolve from lower life forms, but was formed as man by God, without evolution. This has been taught in church over the years, and accepted. It is not what is taught at BYU campuses.

My point is, an official statement can be contradicted. Your claim above made it sounds as though the evidence that the first presidency never made a statement about BoM geography can be seen in that there are still diverse opinions which are allowed to be aired on the matter at BYU. My point is, a statement was made in 1909, but ambiguity still arises and is allowed.

We are saying something similar, but distinct. I believe you are saying that if the church had made an official statement of policy concerning geography, it would not be contradicted, but since opinions about geography are diverse, it is evidence there are no policies. I am saying that the church makes official doctrinal statements but can later decide differently. The book you referenced probably shows this.

[Daniel Peterson]

I believe you are saying that if the church had made an official statement of policy concerning geography, it would not be contradicted, but since opinions about geography are diverse, it is evidence there are no policies. I am saying that the church makes official doctrinal statements but can later decide differently. The book you referenced probably shows this.

I don't agree with you, but this isn't an argument that interests me right now.

The fact is that the Church currently has no official position on the location of the final Book of Mormon battles. I see no evidence that it ever actually did, but, if it did now, it would surely not permit that position to be expressly contradicted in its own official magazine, in memos from its highest ranking secretaries, in books published by its wholly-owned publishing house, and orally and in print by professors at its wholly-owned university. Professors have, rumor has it, been let go from BYU for much less clear dissent on much more peripheral issues.

[Bob Oliverio]

Sorry, hadn't seen any of this since leaving Salt Lake and getting our family back home here in Atlanta.

Everybody gets it by now. Everybody agrees these were private letters. Agree to disagree on everything else.

Minos,

With all due respect I was merely sharing the opinions from Church leaders I had the opportunity to share this  issue and the respective documents shown above while in Utah over the holidays.  I did not reach the conclusion, nor did I get the conclusion from the SP and Bishop I shared the 1990 letter from the First Presidency referred to above, that the such communication was limited to the addressee alone.  And we all concluded that based on the contents of the letter.

All I have asked is if there is an official communication by the church that serves as a retractment of this letter or if there is an official statement from the Church stating some other position.  I would be very interested in it's content as it would be news to me and contradict what I was taught to believe.   I believe it is a relevant and respectful question.  I have no idea why you ask me to "move on" when I have been nothing but respectful.

Does it really matter that a communication from the Office of the First Presidency quoted a relevant statement from the quasi-official Encyclopedia of Mormonism instead of inventing its own synonymous boilerplate language? Not that I can see.

Mr Peterson, and with all respect here, I may be confused but two questions come to mind:

If a fax from this Carla Ogden is an official communication from the Office of The First Presidency, why is a letter directed by President Hinckley to be issued by his Secretary, on First Presidency letterhead, not official or less official?  I just don't see where Ms Ogden's response was directed by President Hinckley.

What does "quasi-official" mean in your context?  If what was cited in the fax from Ms Ogden was that authoritative, why the need to solicit the fax from Ms Ogden in the first place when a cite from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism would have been official enough and already existed?  My wife's uncle is married to a daughter of the McConkie family. They are great people and very much a part of my joining the Church.  And while I have been encouraged to read this as mandatory family\church reading, I was also told that it was not official Church doctrine but the thoughts of a very educated, knowledgable inspired Church Authority. At least tell me I'm right on that one!

I admit,  I'm a new convert, but I am just not following some of this logic here.  Again, what am I missing?  And again for Minos, with all due respect.

[Bob Crockett]

I have been aligned with your views, but ---

I wouldn't be broadcasting your stake president's and bishop's views on the subject. They are not authoritative. Unlike citations to general authorities there is no way any of us here could attempt to inspect what they said, what knowledge they had, what information they had acquired, what question was posed to them, and what their real unvarnished response might have been. I've had plumbers, dentists, photographers, sign painters for bishops and stake presidents and they'd likely have no clue as to the church's historic statements on a topic meaningless to our salvation. I doubt they would have given you their position if they thought you'd broadcast it on the internet.

But I would rely on the Encyclopedia. That is as close as you can get to the church's position on this subject.

And, repeating your points is kind of a waste of time. You aren't going to get a different answer.

And, I'd focus on what the Book of Mormon says on meaningful topics. To me, the location of the Hill Cumorah has about as much importance to my salvation as does the location of the real Mt. Ararat.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Bob Crockett

[Freedom]

All these statements, official or otherwise, are quite meaningless. The doctrines of the church are found in the scriptures and in the official declarations. None of these documents indicate where the events took place. Even if the the position of the first presidency was stated in a letter, until it is presented before the quorum of the 12 and accepted by the members of the church, it is their official opinion but not official doctrine. This is all much ado about nothing.

[Minos]

Forgive me, but I didn't understand what rule I broke. I asked a question. I didn't make a claim. I was asking whether statements made officially by the first presidency are not as relevant as books published by independent publishers. Plus, I did not see an approval statement by the First Presidency in the sample at

http://www.amazon.co...&sr=1-1-catcorr

But if you can point me to the page #, I would be happy to report otherwise.

I understand that the moderator does not like my argument. And that to the moderator it seems I am not being reasonable. My belief is, that many have the same question about what sources one should trust concerning doctrinal statements. If one should not trust LDS.ORG, but should trust a book on Amazon, I think this is a very good discussion to have. It's a confusing state, otherwise.

Now you are being rude to the people who decide whether you will stay on this privately owned and managed board. You have been given an Amazon preview link to a few pages that gives you the information you are badgering posters about. It was very few pages that you must not have even looked at. Read page 4 line 12 where it states that what you are reading was approved by the First Presidency before publication. If you believe this book is making fraudulent claims it is your burden of proof to establish that. If you persist in badgering posters for information they have already provided you will be removed from the thread.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

Be respectful of the moderators. We don't expect you to agree with our decisions, but we do expect to be respected for the work we put into this board. Do not start threads to criticize moderators, complain about thread closures, or backtalk when we intervene.

Prohibited: Badgering a participant for an answer when it has already been given

[Daniel Peterson]

I did not reach the conclusion, nor did I get the conclusion from the SP and Bishop I shared the 1990 letter from the First Presidency referred to above, that the such communication was limited to the addressee alone.

But think about it for a moment: Do you seriously believe -- does it make any sense to assume -- that the way the Church announces doctrinal positions is to write them up in private letters from secretaries addressed, one at a time, to individual bishops, and then to trust that, somehow, news of each letter will percolate throughout the general membership, including those who speak languages other than English? With all of the resources at its disposal, including official letters from the First Presidency itself sent to bishops and stake presidents worldwide for reading in sacrament meetings, it chose to make this particular doctrinal stance public by sending a single private letter to a single Oklahoma bishop in an era when the Internet was just beginning to pick up real steam, hoping that, by means of bootleg photocopies, it would reach leaders and members around the globe? It could have published the new doctrine in its official monthly magazine, but chose not to do so? It could have read a clear, formal statement on the subject in general conference, but opted against that course?

All I have asked is if there is an official communication by the church that serves as a retractment of this letter

I have absolutely no idea whether a second letter was or was not sent to that bishop in Oklahoma.

I do know for certain that no letter has ever been sent to me retracting anything ever said in a private letter to any other individual bishop or member. I would find it extraordinarily odd, frankly, to receive such a letter.

or if there is an official statement from the Church stating some other position.

There has never been an official statement from the Church stating any position on the geography of the Book of Mormon. That's my point.

If a fax from this Carla Ogden is an official communication from the Office of The First Presidency, why is a letter directed by President Hinckley to be issued by his Secretary, on First Presidency letterhead, not official or less official?

I see them as roughly equally "official." Which is to say that I don't see either one as being a formal, official, announcement of Church doctrine. Church doctrines aren't announced in private letters or private faxes.

I just don't see where Ms Ogden's response was directed by President Hinckley.

It's been nearly two decades since any of this happened. I believe that Carla Ogden's fax, if that's really the communication in question, was sent by Carla Ogden, a subordinate secretary in the office of the First Presidency, at the request of Michael Watson, who was, at the time, the Secretary to the First Presidency. Michael Watson was the same person who had sent the earlier letter to that bishop in Oklahoma. That earlier letter was already circulating, particularly among certain critics of the Church, and a few of us, aware of it, felt that it was being abused. With that concern in mind, if I'm not mistaken, my colleague and friend Professor William Hamblin contacted Michael Watson for clarification, and, in response, received the Carla Ogden fax from Michael Watson's office. Carla Ogden most likely wasn't running a rogue operation out of the First Presidency's office, and, apart from this fax, I don't believe I've ever heard one word about her.

What does "quasi-official" mean in your context?

I haven't gone back to look, but I believe that I used that phrase with reference to the Enyclopedia of Mormonism. (I've just noticed, for what it's worth, that the Wikipedia entry on the Encyclopedia also uses that phrase to describe it.)

I call the Encyclopedia "quasi-official" because, although it has never been treated as "scripture" or regarded as the equivalent of a formal declaration from the First Presidency, the Church and, with the Church's explicit permission, Brigham Young University (the Church's wholly-owned university) made considerable resources of time and personnel available for work on it, and, by Church appointment, Elders Neal A. Maxwell and Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve (along with BYU president and future apostle Jeffrey R. Holland) were deeply involved in the project.

If what was cited in the fax from Ms Ogden was that authoritative,

It was, in my view, pretty much as authoritative or non-authoritative as the earlier Watson letter.

why the need to solicit the fax from Ms Ogden in the first place when a cite from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism would have been official enough and already existed?

Nothing was solicited from Ms. Ogden. As I say, to the best of my recollection, none of us knew she existed. I certainly didn't. Clarification was sought from Michael Watson, in the Office of the First Presidency, because the earlier letter to that Oklahoma bishop, a letter that we believed to be problematic, had been sent by Michael Watson from the Office of the First Presidency. The fax was, I take it, Michael Watson's response to our (Bill Hamblin's) inquiry or request for clarification. It happened to actually be sent by his assistant, Carla Ogden.

It strikes me as insignificant that Michael Watson chose to respond using language from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Had he said the same thing in his own words, the significance of his statement would have been unchanged.

My wife's uncle is married to a daughter of the McConkie family. They are great people and very much a part of my joining the Church. And while I have been encouraged to read this as mandatory family\church reading, I was also told that it was not official Church doctrine but the thoughts of a very educated, knowledgable inspired Church Authority. At least tell me I'm right on that one!

You're right on that one. But I think you may be confusing the Encyclopedia of Mormonism with Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine. They have no connection.

[cinepro]

I call the Encyclopedia "quasi-official" because, although it has never been treated as "scripture" or regarded as the equivalent of a formal declaration from the First Presidency, the Church and, with the Church's explicit permission, Brigham Young University (the Church's wholly-owned university) made considerable resources of time and personnel available for work on it, and, by Church appointment, Elders Neal A. Maxwell and Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve (along with BYU president and future apostle Jeffrey R. Holland) were deeply involved in the project.

"Quasi-official" indeed.

“Those who have written and edited [the Encyclopedia of Mormonism] have only tried to explain their understanding of Church history, doctrines, and procedures; their statements and opinions remain their own. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a joint product of Brigham Young University and Macmillan Publishing Company, and its contents do not necessarily represent the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” - Daniel H. Ludlow

[livy111us]

Yet they worked closely with leaders of the Church:

"President Jeffrey R. Holland took the query to his Board of Trustees. They instructed him to proceed. Working closely with Church authorities and Macmillan, President Holland chose an editor in chief and a board of editors. Discussion of possible titles concluded that the work should be called the Encyclopedia of Mormonism since that is the term by which the Church is most widely known, though unofficially."

Edited January 1, 2012 by livy111us

[Maidservant]

one thing is clear: God has firmly established the location of biblical events.

That's a bit wide.

Genesis 2:8 And God planted a garden eastward in Eden . . .

:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads

:11 The name of the first is Pison; that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold . . .

:13 And the name of the second is Gihon: the same is it the compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia

:14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

because of us needing faith

This may be some people's understanding of the Lord's motives, but not my understanding. God could reveal anything, but observably he hasn't revealed everything. I mean, why did he tell Douglas Adams the meaning of life, but not the rest of the prophets? (That would be "42", and you know it makes as much sense as anything. ). God has some very specific purposes (for his church), and he works to bring those to pass, and the Book of Mormon--as a testament of Christ and as a template for understanding our day and as a key for the establishment of the church (covenant)--is a crucial piece of that work; and the rest of human experience, including much of what can happen in his church (including geographical inquiries), is wide open to our own choices as human beings. God, in my observation, is not a micro-manager.

Surely God wants us to find the real Lamanites all of his children and give them copies of the BoM.

From what I can tell, Moroni's prophecy and hope that the BoM would go to his brethren and his promise of the Holy Ghost to the Lamanites (Mor 10) is unfulfilled. All it would take is one revelation on geolocation to fix this.

How can you or anyone tell? Everyone will have a Book of Mormon, that wants one. So if it is unfulfilled, not for long. The geo-location is planet earth.

[Daniel Peterson]

"Quasi-official" indeed.

Your quote in no way contradicts or conflicts with my description, above.

The Encyclopedia is plainly not official. That's what I said. Nevertheless, although it has never been treated as "scripture" nor regarded as the equivalent of a formal declaration from the First Presidency, the Church and, with the Church's explicit permission, Brigham Young University (the Church's wholly-owned university) made considerable resources of time and personnel available for work on it, and, by Church appointment, Elders Neal A. Maxwell and Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve (along with BYU president and future apostle Jeffrey R. Holland) were deeply involved in the project.

[Vance]

The Meldrumites aren't going to like this one.

Elder Uchtdorf, to Guatemalan youth, "You are truly children of our wonderful Father Lehi."

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/61817/Quetzaltenango-Guatemala-Temple-2400-youth-participate-in-cultural-celebration.html

[Freedom]

The Meldrumites aren't going to like this one.

Elder Uchtdorf, to Guatemalan youth, "You are truly children of our wonderful Father Lehi."

http://www.ldschurch...elebration.html

Indeed.

[Bob Oliverio]

Hadn't been able to see and respond to the conversation for a while but would like to address a few comments:

I have been aligned with your views, but ---

I wouldn't be broadcasting your stake president's and bishop's views on the subject.

Mr Crocket, why is this a problem for you.  While they were not "my" SP and Biahop (they were those of my wife's extended family in Utah while we were there over Xmas) and neither had any reservations of their conclusions to a broader crowd than just my wife and I.  It was a rather large holiday gathering and no one involved in the review of the documents or involved in the discussions was the least bit uncomfortable.

They are not authoritative.

And, other than the 1990 letter from The Office of The First Presidency, at the obvious direction from President Hinckley, that has been cited here, nothing here has been authoritative either.  Is that not true?

But I would rely on the Encyclopedia. That is as close as you can get to the church's position on this subject.

More official than a letter from The Office of The First Presidency?  Others here have already admitted the "Encyclopedia" is not official.  So I don't understand your conclusion or rationale for it.

To me, the location of the Hill Cumorah has about as much importance to my salvation as does the location of the real Mt. Ararat.

I think I would have to strongly disagree with you here.  Many things factored into my decision to join the Church. Above all was my conviction that it was true in it's claims and gospel.  The history claimed in the BOM must be true, must have existed or it's message is not.  To assert that that the location of Cumorah, after all the statements from prior Church leaders I was shown, is somehow now not important or in dispute, is in direct contradiction to what I was taught.  I have never seen anything that contradict with these teachings even if you may have a different opinion now.

But think about it for a moment: Do you seriously believe -- does it make any sense to assume -- that the way the Church announces doctrinal positions is to write them up in private letters from secretaries addressed, one at a time, to individual bishops, and then to trust that, somehow, news of each letter will percolate throughout the general membership, including those who speak languages other than English? With all of the resources at its disposal, including official letters from the First Presidency itself sent to bishops and stake presidents worldwide for reading in sacrament meetings, it chose to make this particular doctrinal stance public by sending a single private letter to a single Oklahoma bishop in an era when the Internet was just beginning to pick up real steam, hoping that, by means of bootleg photocopies, it would reach leaders and members around the globe? It could have published the new doctrine in its official monthly magazine, but chose not to do so? It could have read a clear, formal statement on the subject in general conference, but opted against that course?

Mr Peterson,

 I think we must be coming at this from different perspectives:  You seem, for some reason to be, as my wife pointed out to me, ignoring statements from many church leaders in the past stating (quite clearly) that Hill Cumorah in NY is the same one as mentioned in the Book of Mormon. You seem to think the First Presidency's letter is stating something new. I see the 1990 letter from the First Presidency's Office as in line and consistent to what Church GA's have been advocating for years.  I don't see it as something new or inconsistent with the past.  That's why the claim that it was "a private communication" makes little sense to me and those who we (my wife and I) sought input from last week.

Clarification was sought from Michael Watson, in the Office of the First Presidency, because the earlier letter to that Oklahoma bishop, a letter that we believed to be problematic, had been sent by Michael Watson from the Office of the First Presidency.

Who are you referring to when you say "we"?  And I think I tried to ask this about over a week ago but - why was the First Presidency's letter "problematic" for you or your group?  The letter is very clear that the response was at the direction of President Hinckley.  And it is not saying anything different than Church authorities have been stating for years. So I'm not sure why that would/should be problematic for anyone.

The fax from Ms Ogden gives no indication as to who she is responding for other than herself.  And all it quotes is an unofficial source of personal opinions that had been in existence for some time.  I don't know who Mr Hamblin is but it would seem he could have just as easily used the quote from Encyclopedia of Mormonism without the need to solicit either Ms Ogden or Mr Watson if he was trying to support his personal opinion that differed from the First Presidency's letter.  It turns out that was all he achieved anyway.  So I'm not sure what was important on having this language repeated on the fax from Ms Ogden.  What am I missing here?

And thank you, you were quite correct in my confusion between Mormon Doctrine and Encyclopedia of Mormonism.  My mistake.

[Bob Crockett]

Whoa there. I agree with your sentiments about the Hill Cumorah. But your arguments won't wash.

Citing some unnamed stake president or bishop? Well, my mission president pal told me that no part of the mission plan requires missionaries to tell prospects that the Nephite final battle occurred at the present hill. Since my mission president pal ranks above a stake president I guess I win.

I like your points about the letters. I feel for you brother. I started to lose my testimony when l learned that both Turkey and Armenia claimed Mt. Ararat.

[Freedom]

I like your points about the letters. I feel for you brother. I started to lose my testimony when l learned that both Turkey and Armenia claimed Mt. Ararat.

I like that. I am going to add it to my cannon.

[LeSellers]

I like that. I am going to add it to my cannon.

What's the range of that cannon?

With apologies to Nash:

One enned canons are sacred tomes.

Two enned cannons hurl great bombs.

But I will bet my stunted banyan

There's such thing as a three enned cannnon.

Lehi

Edited January 7, 2012 by LeSellers

[Anijen]

You mean more like Quaker Cannons; is like arguing about the geography of the Book of Mormon.

But if Meldrum looks hard enough I am sure he can misquote an expert on how authentic they are too.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Anijen

[Bob Oliverio]

Whoa there. I agree with your sentiments about the Hill Cumorah. But your arguments won't wash.

Citing some unnamed stake president or bishop? Well, my mission president pal told me that no part of the mission plan requires missionaries to tell prospects that the Nephite final battle occurred at the present hill. Since my mission president pal ranks above a stake president I guess I win.

I like your points about the letters. I feel for you brother. I started to lose my testimony when l learned that both Turkey and Armenia claimed Mt. Ararat.

I did not cite some unnamed stake president. I cited a 1990 letter from the Office of The First Presidency issued on the direction of President Hinckley. And please dont insult my intelligence with a strawman about Mt Arafat. I am a securities attorney with great credentials. Please treat me with the same level of respect that you would expect. I am not sure what your problem is.

[Bob Crockett]

Where do you practice? There is no Bob Oliverio admitted in the U.S as far as I can tell.

Hey, brother, it is Mt. Ararat. Looks like your spell checker auto corrected you.

And, like I say, I sign onto that Watson letter as well. The church has never adopted the MesoAmerican LGT theory. I have gone on record thoroughly rejecting it. So I guess my point is that I wonder why your belief system is so compromised by something the Church doesn't advance. These MesoAmerican theorists are just having a little speculative fun. Since it isn't essential doctrine who cares? Some of the stuff they produce is instructive in understanding the Book of Mormon.

[ebeddoulos]

What's the range of that cannon?

With apologies to Nash:

One enned canons are sacred tomes.

Two enned cannons hurl great bombs.

But I will bet my stunted banyan

There's such thing as a three enned cannnon.

Lehi

What a marvelous little poem.

[The Nehor]

Since my mission president pal ranks above a stake president I guess I win.

Nope. Different lines of authority entirely. A Mission President can't tell a Stake President to do anything.

[Scott Lloyd]

Nope. Different lines of authority entirely. A Mission President can't tell a Stake President to do anything.

This misses the point of Bob's comment. Where the Church has taken no official position, a stake president has no more authority to declare such a position than does a mission president.

[The Nehor]

This misses the point of Bob's comment. Where the Church has taken no official position, a stake president has no more authority to declare such a position than does a mission president.

This is true. I was quibbling over a detail not disagreeing in general.