Non-Lds Scholars Speak Out Against Meldrum

[LeSellers]

What a marvelous little poem.

You are very nice to say so. Thank you.

Lehi

[Daniel Peterson]

More official than a letter from The Office of The First Presidency?

There are letters from the Office of the First Presidency, and then there are letters from the Office of the First Presidency.

A letter addressed by the Office of the First Presidency to all general authorities, general officers, area authorities, stake presidents, district presidents, bishops, and branch presidents in the Church, signed by all of the members of the First Presidency and accompanied by instructions that it be read to all Church members in sacrament meetings -- as a bishop, I received several such letters -- very obviously represents an official statement of doctrine or practice for the Church as a whole. A letter from the same office, sent by a secretary to a single bishop, seems -- to put it mildly -- a less obvious way (and a remarkably inefficient way) of announcing doctrine or practice to the general Church membership. In fact, it's difficult to see why or how a member living in, say, Hermosillo, Mexico, or in Juneau, Alaska, or in Interlaken, Switzerland, should feel bound by a letter sent privately to a bishop in Oklahoma, or how the leadership of the Church could reasonably expect her to feel so bound.

Others here have already admitted the "Encyclopedia" is not official. So I don't understand your conclusion or rationale for it.

Once again, there's "official" and there's "unofficial." But that doesn't exhaust the possibilities. There's a spectrum.

Your posts here, and mine, are very unofficial statements of Church doctrine and practice. Neither of us has the authority to speak on behalf of the Church. An official declaration of the First Presidency and the Twelve, by contrast, would be quite official indeed. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, obviously, isn't so official as a formal declaration of the First Presidency and the Twelve. But, as a project to which the Church's university, with the formal blessing of the leadership of the Church, devoted considerable resources, and to which two members of the Twelve (accompanied by a future member of the Twelve) served as officially appointed advisors, it's a heck of a lot more official than, say, the posts on this message board. That's why I've called it (and, entirely independently of me, Wikipedia has called it) "quasi-official."

And the fact that it was quoted (without attribution) in a communication from the Office of the First Presidency as expressing that office's position certainly doesn't lessen its quasi-official character.

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.

The fact that there exists a dispute as to the location of the final Nephite and Jaredite battles is an entirely separate matter from whether those battles literally occurred or not. There are two principal contending sites for the resurrection of Jesus -- the Garden Tomb (Gordon's Calvary) and the traditional Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Which one of them is the correct location -- I have my own fairly strong opinion on the matter -- is of decisively secondary importance compared to the question of whether the Resurrection happened in the first place. I'm firmly convinced that it did, though I can't tell you definitely where it did.

I think we must be coming at this from different perspectives:

That's evident.

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.

I'm not ignoring them. I'm quite well aware of them. I just don't give them the weight that you do. I think they reflect what was, for well over a century, the unquestioned and universally accepted assumption in the Church. Indeed, haven't seen any polling data, but I expect that it's still the general assumption.

You seem to think the First Presidency's letter is stating something new.

No. Quite the contrary. I think it's stating precisely what everybody in the Church, by and large, had thought since roughly, oh, 6 April 1830. It reflects the assumption that I myself held for the first half of my life, or more.

But I see nothing indicating that the Church has ever received a revelation confirming that assumption, and I'm now convinced both that the assumption is wrong and that it's unnecessary. It's not entailed by any revelation known to the Church.

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.

I don't disagree even slightly -- though, with a few exceptions (e.g., Joseph Fielding Smith, who argued for it using evidence and analysis such as any scriptural commentator would, but cited no revelation specifically on the topic), they haven't really been "advocating" a New York location for the final battles. To the extent that the subject has arisen, they've presumed it. Which is rather a different thing.

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.

I don't know how I can be clearer than I have been on this point, but I'll try.

The fact that it was a private communication indicates that it was not trying to, did not seek to, establish an official doctrine on the location of the final Nephite and Jarediate battles. The fact that those seeking to demonstrate that the Church has such an official doctrine are reduced to citing bootleg copies of a private letter to a single Oklahoma bishop demonstrates that they have nothing better with which to make their case. Have Latter-day Saint leaders generally assumed that those battles occurred in upstate New York? Yes. Absolutely. Has the general membership of the Church shared that assumption? Yes. Absolutely. Is there an official and binding statement to that effect? No. Absolutely not.

And to confirm that there is utterly no official position on the part of the Church as to the location of those final battles, we have books published by the Church's wholly owned publishing company arguing that those battles took place elsewhere. We have articles published in the Church's official magazine arguing that those battles took place elsewhere. We have scholars at the Church's wholly-owned and closely-managed university arguing that those battles took place elsewhere. We have an Institute at that university that is publicly and openly associated with the view that those battles took place elsewhere. And, for what it's worth, I've spoken directly with General Authorities of the Church who believe that those battles took place elsewhere. If a New York location for the final battles were truly a binding and official doctrine of the Church, it's unthinkable that the leaders of the Church would permit vocal and public dissent from that view in the Church's own magazines, in books published by its publishing company, and in its own university.

Who are you referring to when you say "we"?

Essentially, in this particular story, to myself and Professor William Hamblin. Though we're far from alone in our views.

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?

Because I think the New York location for the final battles almost certainly wrong, and because, although it's been the virtually unquestioned view in the Church for many generations, I don't think it correct to describe that view as "official."

The letter is very clear that the response was at the direction of President Hinckley.

"Mike, willl you handle this one?"

And it is not saying anything different than Church authorities have been stating for years.

Quite so. Please note, once again, that I do not deny this and have never denied it.

So I'm not sure why that would/should be problematic for anyone.

Statements are neither true nor false based upon the mere fact that they've been made for a long time.

Years ago, President Harold B. Lee came through Jerusalem. (An incidental fact: He was accompanied by the president of the Switzerland Zürich Mission, Edwin Q. Cannon, because Israel, along with much of the rest of the Middle East, the eastern Mediterranean, and Africa, was under the jurisdiction of the Swiss Mission at the time. I had arrived in the Swiss Mission only two or three months earlier, and got to meet President Lee when he passed through Switzerland on his way home to set apart a new president for the temple in Zollikofen. Later, I served in the Mission Home with President Cannon, and, subsequently, I've lived in Jerusalem and served in that branch. I know this story well, from several angles.) While there, he organized a branch, with David B. Galbraith as president and John Tvedtnes as first counselor. I don't recall the name of the second counselor, who was there only relatively briefly. The day before he was to leave, Brothers Galbraith and Tvedtnes approached him about the possibility of changing the day of Church meetings in Israel from Sunday to Saturday. Sunday, they explained, was a work day. Meetings had to be held in the evening. People were tired, they couldn't really live the Sabbath properly, their children had spent the day in school and dreaded the nighttime meetings, it was impossible to invite friends, and etc. "No," responded President Lee. "Absolutely not. The Lord's Day is Sunday." The next day, however, as they took him to the airport, he brought the subject up himself. "Could you write to me at Church headquarters about that question?" he said. They did, and permission to hold meetings on Saturday soon arrived from Salt Lake. Now, I can't know what President Lee was thinking. But I have a good idea. I strongly suspect that his first answer came because Sunday was and had always been the Sabbath as he knew it. There was no question. It was unambiguous. So his first response was to disallow any change. But, upon reflection, he realized that he was basing his answer upon tradition, and that that tradition was not binding. I think that the New York location for the final battles -- please recall that I don't deny, but in fact celebrate, the fact that that hill in New York is the location of the burial of the plates and of Moroni's visits with Joseph Smith -- is mere Church tradition. It is not binding. Plainly, the leaders of the Church don't think it binding, or they wouldn't permit conflicting positions to be advocated in the Church's magazines, in books published by its publishing house, and at its university.

[Daniel Peterson]

The fax from Ms Ogden gives no indication as to who she is responding for other than herself.

Bill Hamblin had sent an inquiry to Michael Watson at the Office of the First Presidency. I suppose it's possible that one Carl Ogden, of whom neither Bill nor I had ever heard, coincidentally took it upon herself to fax down a randomly chosen quotation from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism at just that time. But it seems rather unlikely.

And all it quotes is an unofficial source of personal opinions that had been in existence for some time.

In the light of what I've told you about the manner in which the Encyclopedia of Mormonism was produced, dismissing it as merely "an unofficial source of personal opinions" (as if it were on a par with posts on this message board) seems, to say the least of it, rather glib.

And had the Encyclopedia of Mormonism really "been in existence for some time" when the Carla Ogden fax was sent on 23 April 1993? It was published in 1992. In my book, that doesn't sound like a long time. But then, I'm a medievalist with a strong background in ancient intellectual history, so my sense of time may be warped. One thing is clear, though: The letter to that bishop in Oklahoma was sent on 16 October 1990. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism hadn't been published at that point, so it wasn't available to the Office of the First Presidency. I expect that, in the years since its publication, they've found it a convenient source for language answering questions.

I don't know who Mr Hamblin is

He's a friend of mine, and a professor of history at Brigham Young University.

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?

You're missing the central issue, it seems to me. He was seeking clarification from the Office of the First Presidency regarding a letter that had been sent out from the Office of the First Presidency. And he got it. It was important that the clarification came from the same office that issue the initial letter. And it did. That the Office of the First Presidency used language from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism doesn't lessen the authority of the subsequent communication. If anything, it bolsters that authority.

[Bill Hamblin]

You're missing the central issue, it seems to me. He was seeking clarification from the Office of the First Presidency regarding a letter that had been sent out from the Office of the First Presidency. And he got it. It was important that the clarification came from the same office that issue the initial letter. And it did. That the Office of the First Presidency used language from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism doesn't lessen the authority of the subsequent communication. If anything, it bolsters that authority.

If he hasn't understood it by now, Dan, he'll never get it.

[Bob Oliverio]

Mr Peterson,  

Can I just limit this to two questions for you:

Do you believe the 1990 letter from the Office of the First Presidency was a communication from President Hinckley? (If you don't, can you explain, on a comparative basis, how the fax from Ms Ogden was a communication from Mr Watson, let alone from the Church?)

When did the Church change it's long maintained position, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.

I appreciate your responses but I've found in my life's practices that shorter answers are usually more accurate.  Maybe it's just a lawyer thing.

Thanks

[why me]

The letter shown above is a letter from the Office of the First Presidency. How much more official can we get? It is very clear iin what it states, leaving no ambiguity. Why is it your opinion that it is something different The letter appears to be in line with what i have been shown from past leaders of the church regarding the location of Hill Cumorah. I was told this from missionaries at the Palmyra pagent as well. That is what started my conversion into the Church. This is the first Ive ever heard that some in the Church beleive the location is not in NY? Other than your opinion, can you point to somethng more official than a letter from the First Presidency's Office?

I think that inside the church you will get different perspectives and this is not necessarily a bad thing. I believe that the debate is open as to where the final battle occured. And one can take either view without any problems or complications. However, I have not heard of any revelation that has confirmed either position.

But here is what is important: we have a book called the book of mormon. It exists. The key question remains: how did it come to be? Was it written by Joseph Smith? Was it written by ancient prophets? Or was it written by a third party? If a person believes in the second, then it really doesn't matter where the last battle took place. What matters is the book itself. I don't think that JS could have written such a book. There was no manuscript in his hands. And at the end of the day, this is what is important.

And here is the second point: the lds church is not a cult. Members such as on this board are debating openly issues within the church. But all here are just speculating with many issues. Welcome to the speculation!

[Freedom]

Bob,

Even if the presidency comes out and says it is their position that the final Nephite battle took palce in new york, this does not make it so and it does not make it doctrine. It is just their opinion. The only source of doctrine is in the scriptures and in the official proclamations. If the prophet stood up in general confrence and refered to the hill in New York as the location in question, it would not affect my opinion what so ever that it took place in central america. I can provide hudnreds of examples of statements by appostles where their personal opinions were expressed that were later proven to be false or at least not completely accurate. The church website has a statement that tells us doctrines do not come from the voice of individuals. the question is, why do you not believe this to be the case if this has been the case since the church was organized?

[why me]

This seems fairly obvious and convincing. I am a new convert, but what am I missing? Has the Church ever come out with an official statement to withdraw this conclusion? This is what I was always taught by my wife's leaders in her ward when I converted. Was I misled?

´When I read this letter I see the word 'maintained'. I also see that the church maintains. But it doesn't say by revelation. I think that scholars can debate just where the final battle occured. Also, the missionaries that you spoke to believe that the battle took place at the Hill. But others may not say so. I think that as more information comes forward, positions will change. And this is perfectly within church guidelines that as more information or evidence comes forward, ideas and attitudes will change.

Remember the lds church is not a mind controled cult. We are free to explore and to discuss.

[why me]

Bob,

Even if the presidency comes out and says it is their position that the final Nephite battle took palce in new york, this does not make it so and it does not make it doctrine. It is just their opinion. The only source of doctrine is in the scriptures and in the official proclamations. If the prophet stood up in general confrence and refered to the hill in New York as the location in question, it would not affect my opinion what so ever that it took place in central america. I can provide hudnreds of examples of statements by appostles where their personal opinions were expressed that were later proven to be false or at least not completely accurate. The church website has a statement that tells us doctrines do not come from the voice of individuals. the question is, why do you not believe this to be the case if this has been the case since the church was organized?

The letter said that the church maintains. And this may be true. However, as more information comes forward, this position can change as more information is discovered. But what is important is that people are free to discuss and debate just where the battle occurred.

Edited January 7, 2012 by why me

[Bob Oliverio]

If he hasn't understood it by now, Dan, he'll never get it.

Mr Hamblin,

If insulting me makes it easier for you, so be it. If you want civil discourse, you are welcome to answer the two questions I asked Mr Peterson above.

[Freedom]

Mr Peterson,

Can I just limit this to two questions for you:

Do you believe the 1990 letter from the Office of the First Presidency was a communication from President Hinckley? (If you don't, can you explain, on a comparative basis, how the fax from Ms Ogden was a communication from Mr Watson, let alone from the Church?)

When did the Church change it's long maintained position, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.

I appreciate your responses but I've found in my life's practices that shorter answers are usually more accurate. Maybe it's just a lawyer thing.

Thanks

I know this question is not directed at me but I will give my opinion

1) What difference would this make? Even if it were, it would not make it doctrine.

2) I do not believe the church has ever had a position, however church leaders have expressed an opinion from time to time. But still, what difference would it make? What does this have to do with the actual history? I have read the thread and I still do not understand why this matters. Why can't the church take a position on a matter and later, when more information comes forth, change this position? They hold positions on all sorts of matters such as abortion, homosexuality, interracial marriages, methods of burial, formats of ward bulletins, and even types of fund raising.

[Scott Lloyd]

I appreciate your responses but I've found in my life's practices that shorter answers are usually more accurate.  Maybe it's just a lawyer thing.

Thanks

Short answers don't seem to be any more effective with you than long ones. Alas, I fear Professor Hamblin was right in his assessment.

Are you, by chance, a Meldrum devotee?

Edited January 8, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel Peterson]

Do you believe the 1990 letter from the Office of the First Presidency was a communication from President Hinckley?

No. It was, as it says it was, a communication from F. Michael Watson, the secretary to the First Presidency, to a bishop in Oklahoma. It seems, though, to have been written at the request of President Hinckley (who would become president of the Church five years later, in 1995).

If you're insinuating that it probably reflected President Hinckley's opinion on the matter in 1990, your insinuation may well be correct. I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me if it did, since -- as I've been at pains to say, multiple times -- the notion that the final Nephite and Jaredite battles occurred in upstate New York has been the overwhelmingly dominant assumption in the Church since the Church's earliest days. Its "market share" has, I think, declined measurably over the past two or three decades, but it was certainly prevalent during President Hinckley's formative years (he was born in 1910) and it's very probable that he held it in 1990, when he was the first counselor in the First Presidency of the Church. Does that mean that it rested on specific revelation? No. At least, no such revelation has ever been claimed. By anybody. Does it mean that he still held that view in 1993? I don't see how it could possibly mean that, but perhaps he did.

I assume that, in his 1990 letter, Michael Watson felt that he was reflecting the long-standing, majority view of the Church and its leaders, which he indisputably was, and that he was representing the view of President Hinckley and the First Presidency, which he probably also was. But that doesn't make his letter an official statement of Church doctrine.

Incidentally, it was Gordon B. Hinckley, by then the president of the Church, who invited "FARMS" (since renamed the "Maxwell Institute") to affiliate with Brigham Young University in 1997. In extending the invitation, President Hinckley said: "FARMS represents the efforts of sincere and dedicated scholars. It has grown to provide strong support and defense of the Church on a professional basis. . . . I see a bright future for this effort now through the university." He could have used the occasion to demand that FARMS cease contradicting official Church doctrine on the location of the final Nephite and Jaredite battles, but, curiously, he didn't. I represented FARMS in a meeting with President Hinckley, his counselors, President Boyd K. Packer, several of the Twelve, and BYU's President Rex Lee, during which details of that affiliation were discussed. Oddly, nothing was said to me about our quite public advocacy of a non-New-York location for the final Nephite and Jaredite battles -- though it was, ostensibly, in direct contradiction to official Church doctrine.

When did the Church change it's long maintained position, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.

When did you stop beating your wife?

The Church -- this is my point -- has never (and this is my point) had an official position -- please note this, because it's my point -- on the location of the final Nephite and Jaredite battles. That's precisely my point. It has, to put it another way, never had an official position on the final battles of the Nephites and the Jaredites. (Which is my point.) So I can't tell you when the Church changed its position on that matter, because -- and this is my point -- I deny that the Church ever had such a position.

I appreciate your responses but I've found in my life's practices that shorter answers are usually more accurate. Maybe it's just a lawyer thing.

My life's experience has been that too-short answers are generally simplistic and misleading. But maybe that's just a professor thing. When students submit simplistic answers, I give them bad grades. (If they're lucky, though, they might still be able to get into law school.)

[Scott Lloyd]

My life's experience has been that too-short answers are generally simplistic and misleading. But maybe that's just a professor thing. When students submit simplistic answers, I give them bad grades. (If they're lucky, though, they might still be able to get into law school.)

Jaybear, on another thread, seems adamant that a single word, "yes" or "no," is quite sufficient to answer most any question, that if one goes beyond that, one is evading the question.

"Lawyer thing" indeed!

[Daniel Peterson]

Jaybear, on another thread, seems adamant that a single word, "yes" or "no," is quite sufficient to answer most any question, that if one goes beyond that, one is evading the question.

"Lawyer thing" indeed!

That was what I was getting at with my "When did you stop beating your wife?" response, above. Bob Oliverio's prior question ("When did the Church change it's long maintained position . . . ?") was, given my claim that the Church has never had a position on the matter, a plain instance of the fallacy of the "loaded question" -- of which the classic illustration is some variation or other of "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

If you're restricted to a simple yes/no response to that question -- short answers only! -- then there's no real way to challenge the assumption underlying it. You're forbidden, under that arbitrary and unfair rule, to respond "I don't have a wife," or "I've never beaten my wife." A "Yes" answer implies, plainly, that you once did beat your wife, but that you've stopped, whereas a "No" answer implies that you're still beating her. Either way, you're guilty.

With Bob Oliverio's question, I could either supply a date for the Church's change of its alleged position, which would grant that it once officially held such a position (which I deny), or, failing to supply such a date, I would be admitting that it still does officially hold that position (which I also deny). It was a loaded question, logically illegitimate.

[Bill Hamblin]

Mr Hamblin,

If insulting me makes it easier for you, so be it. If you want civil discourse, you are welcome to answer the two questions I asked Mr Peterson above.

I'm not insulting you. It's just an observation. Dan has explained his position over and over. If you don't understand it by now--and you apparently don't--then you never will.

[David Bokovoy]

When did the Church change it's long maintained position, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.

I appreciate your responses but I've found in my life's practices that shorter answers are usually more accurate. Maybe it's just a lawyer thing.

Thanks

Apparently it is a "lawyer" thing:

"Do you favor the United States Army abolishing the affirmative-action program that produced Colin Powell? Yes or no?" Bill Clinton.

[Scott Lloyd]

Apparently it is a "lawyer" thing:

"Do you favor the United States Army abolishing the affirmative-action program that produced Colin Powell? Yes or no?" Bill Clinton.

Deep in their hearts, lawyers must understand the pitfalls of the overly simplistic, too-short response. Else why would they write contracts and other documents laden with tons of verbiage designed to cover every contingency and close every loophole?

Perhaps they understand only too well. I told Jaybear on the other thread that insisting on a one-word response is predatory behavior.

[sethpayne]

Perhaps they understand only too well. I told Jaybear on the other thread that insisting on a one-word response is predatory behavior.

Predatory? Are you serious?

Requesting one word responses may be absurd, silly, innapropriate but predatory?

So when a judge in a court trial request yes/no answers to questions during cross examination they are being predatory. Got it.

The benefit of one word answers, of course, is that it does't allow the respondent to "spin" the answer. Do I think requesting single word answers appropriate for a discussion board? Of course not, but your claim of predatory behavior seems to me to be a bit silly.

[Freedom]

Predatory? Are you serious?

Requesting one word responses may be absurd, silly, innapropriate but predatory?

So when a judge in a court trial request yes/no answers to questions during cross examination they are being predatory. Got it.

The benefit of one word answers, of course, is that it does't allow the respondent to "spin" the answer. Do I think requesting single word answers appropriate for a discussion board? Of course not, but your claim of predatory behavior seems to me to be a bit silly.

I think you are taking his comments out of context. The reference was to questions that are either misleading or overly complicated making a one word answer impossible, and therefore designed to entrap the other person. the example that was given, among others, was 'when did you stop beating your wife'.

[Storm Rider]

I know this question is not directed at me but I will give my opinion

1) What difference would this make? Even if it were, it would not make it doctrine.

2) I do not believe the church has ever had a position, however church leaders have expressed an opinion from time to time. But still, what difference would it make? What does this have to do with the actual history? I have read the thread and I still do not understand why this matters. Why can't the church take a position on a matter and later, when more information comes forth, change this position? They hold positions on all sorts of matters such as abortion, homosexuality, interracial marriages, methods of burial, formats of ward bulletins, and even types of fund raising.

Freedom, you are not really saying that there is a line upon line, precept upon precept form of learning and teaching by the leaders of the Church are you? I am shocked at such a concept!

[Scott Lloyd]

Predatory? Are you serious?

Requesting one word responses may be absurd, silly, innapropriate but predatory?

So when a judge in a court trial request yes/no answers to questions during cross examination they are being predatory. Got it.

In a courtroom, theoretically there is opportunity to bring out relevant truth by allowing the attorney for the opposing side to conduct his own cross-examination. That sort of controlled environment is not possible outside the courtroom.

The benefit of one word answers, of course, is that it does't allow the respondent to "spin" the answer.

Concluding in advance that one's respondent is going to spin the answer if allowed to respond with anything other than yes or no is by nature hostile, because it assumes ill will on the part of the respondent. Better to allow him to respond as he will and then to identify and confront any spin that might emerge.

Do I think requesting single word answers appropriate for a discussion board? Of course not, but your claim of predatory behavior seems to me to be a bit silly.

As Freedom has expressed so well, refusing to allow a respondent to give explanatory content with his answer seems to have as its intent to entrap the respondent into conveying or sustaining an unintended or misleading impression. That strikes me as predatory.

As I told Jaybear on the other thread, nothing causes me to question the motives of or suspect ill will on the part of a questioner more readily than to put questions to me and then try to badger me into answering with one-word responses. I won't put up with it.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I think you are taking his comments out of context. The reference was to questions that are either misleading or overly complicated making a one word answer impossible, and therefore designed to entrap the other person. the example that was given, among others, was 'when did you stop beating your wife'.

Precisely.

David Bokovoy gave another good example above:

"Do you favor the United States Army abolishing the affirmative-action program that produced Colin Powell? Yes or no?" Bill Clinton.

In this instance Clinton was endeavoring to entrap his respondent by putting a question to her with a false premise. Colin Powell could not have benefitted from any affirmative action program in the army, because there was not one in place before he joined the military or even before he became general. But there is no way to say this with a mere yes or no.

It's a classic still-beating-your-wife kind of question.

[Bob Oliverio]

No. It was, as it says it was, a communication from F. Michael Watson, the secretary to the First Presidency, to a bishop in Oklahoma. It seems, though, to have been written at the request of President Hinckley.

It's QUITE CLEAR that it was written at the request of President Hinckley. Why do you seem intent on minimizing this important fact? It's what the letter ACTUALLY says! Where does it ACTUALLY say it was the personal opinion of Mr Watson?  And i mean no disrespect by this but, you really should show some independent support your conclusions.

But you seem to avoid a very important part of the question on comparison to the Carla Ogden fax.  If a written request to President Hinckley, responded to by his direction, does not constitute a communication from President Hinckley, how does the fax from Ms Ogden rise to an official communication from the Church?  From the two documents presented can you explain why a fax from Ms Ogden should be held as more authoritative than a letter from The First Presidency's Office at, as you now admit, the direction of President Hinckley?

Using your same rationale (which you provide no support for) that the 1990 was merely a personal opinion, why should anyone believe that the fax from Ms Ogden was anything more than her "personal opinion"?  I simply see no provenance from this fax - especially compared to the 1990 letter, that it represents anything official, who it was solicited by, and who she is responding for, let alone at the direction of Mr. Watson or a communication  from  the Church or it's General Authorities.

And it does strike  me that, if  Mr Hamblin was serious about an official response, why didn't he simply solicit his inquiry from President Hinckley in the first place, as was done in solicitation of  the 1990 letter?  While its quite clear Mr Watson was responding at the direction of President Hinckley in 1990 letter,  you seem to have intimated that, on his own, Mr Watson (or Ms Ogden) has no capacity to respond on behalf of the Church at all.  So why seek official information (quasi or otherwise) from a non authoritative source to begin with???  Particularly when all that was received was a "cut and paste" from another non-official source?

So again, why do you believe the Ogden fax has greater authority and provenance than the 1990 letter issued at the direction of President Hinckley, and, then claim it as official Church position?

So I can't tell you when the Church changed its position on that matter, because -- and this is my point -- I deny that the Church ever had such a position.

Sort of surprising answer because even a recent convert can see here what The Church's own official website says about Hill Cumorah under Guideline To The Scriptures:

"A small hill LOCATED IN WESTERN NEW YORK, United States of America. Here an ancient prophet named Moroni hid the gold plates containing some of the records of the Nephite and Jaredite nations. Joseph Smith was directed to this hill in 1827 by the resurrected Moroni to get these plates and translate a portion of them. This translation is the Book of Mormon."

http://lds.org/scriptures/gs/cumorah-hill?lang=eng&query=hill+cumorah

Its "market share" has, I think, declined measurably over the past two or three decades, but it was certainly prevalent during President Hinckley's formative years

When do you believe this  "market share", that you seem to allude to so arbitrarily, will be meaningful enough to get the Church to revise it's official website to what you are promoting? I hope you are not using the Bernie Madoff definition of market share here! :-)

BTW, you seem to have quite a following here who come out to attempt to nuetralize anyone who wants to ask sincere questions that may differ from your position.  Are you a some sort of BMOC at BYU?  Kinda feels like Berkley here! Seriously though, I never thought I would get this kind of treatment merely for defending a communication from The Office of The First Presidency and statements from the Official Church website.  I recognize I am a new convert but hope the treatment here  is not indicative of things to come for me.  I have been nothing but respectful and civil AND providing references and reason for my position.  It's better than personal hearsay (and in some case above - personal insults).  Probably  a by-product of my trade from the courtroom.

[poulsenll]

There is no question that the letter was written at the request of President Hinckley. However the letter was written on October 16, 1990 and President Hinckley, although a member of the Presidency, was a councilor in that presidency and did not become the Prophet until five years later on March 12, 1995. Even the Prophet submits any revelation he recieves to the combined First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 before declaring it the policy and doctrine of the Church. For example see D&C Declaration 2.

Official Declaration—2

To Whom It May Concern:

In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:

The procedure for declaring revelation is clearly outined in the above quoted introduction to the letter that was read in conference and then sent to all the Church units.

Although the letter from Bro Watson may have been instigated by Preident HInckley, it did not follow the above outlined prodedure and should be considered a private comunication from Preident Hinckley and not necesarily binding on the entire Church Membership.

Larry P

Edited January 8, 2012 by poulsenll