Non-Lds Scholars Speak Out Against Meldrum

[Bob Crockett]

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.

Hey, brother, I agree with your position, but you're losing them, with your shouting, repetition of the same points and misspellings. I need a champion for my position here, that Cumorah is the same as old Cumorah/Ramah, but you're killing me, man. (Ironically, Dr. Peterson went to Berkeley (not Berkley).) I was hoping that a good lawyer like yourself could grind them into the dust with your logic. There's lots better arguments than this Watson letter biz. A securities lawyer such as yourself would obviously know that an official statement of corporate position cannot come from anybody but an authorized officer. It can't come from the personal secretary of an authorized officer.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Daniel Peterson]

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?

I've acknowledged that the letter appears to have been written at the request of Gordon B. Hinckley, who was, at the time, first counselor in the First Presidency of the Church.

I can, if you wish, rephrase that acknowledgement in all-capital letters and with exclamation marks.

And i mean no disrespect by this but, you really should show some independent support your conclusions.

I've done so. And I've repeated it multiple times.

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?

As I've said, I don't believe that either one of them represents an official statement of Church doctrine.

What I've been arguing is that, if the private 1990 Watson letter states the official and binding doctrine of the Church on the location of the final Nephite and Jaredite battles, the Carla Ogden fax of 1993 (along with several other things) is very difficult to explain.

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?

As I've been saying, I don't believe that official Church doctrine has been, or will be, announced in a private letter written by a secretary to the First Presidency, even if it is written at the request of a counselor to the president of the Church.

I also don't believe that official doctrine is likely to be announced in a private fax sent by a secretary to the First Presidency. But the Carla Ogden fax has the advantage, on this specific issue, of having been written roughly three years after the private 1990 letter, and -- unless I'm mistaken -- of having been written in response to an explicit request for clarification of the status of that letter that had been sent to that letter's author.

Using your same rationale (which you provide no support for) that the 1990 was merely a personal opinion,

I haven't said that the 1990 Watson letter represented merely "personal opinion." I've said that it represented the broad consensus that had reigned in the Church since approximately 6 April 1830 -- a view that I myself had grown up with and had held until just a few years prior to 1990 -- and that it probably also represented the view of President Gordon B. Hinckley (at least at that time), who was then serving as first counselor in the First Presidency of the Church.

My position, though, has been, and continues to be, that the Church has no official, binding, position on the location of the final Nephite and Jaredite battles.

In support of this, I've pointed out that members of the Church are entirely free, without the slightest concern about possible Church discipline or official reprimands, to argue publicly and vocally that those final battles occurred outside of New York state. By contrast, I think it obvious and undeniable that members of the Church are not likely to escape Church discipline if they vocally and publicly contradict doctrines that are officially held as authoritative by the Church. Consider, for instance, twenty examples of doctrines that the Church does hold to be basic and official:

1. There is a God.

2. God is our Heavenly Father.

3. Jesus is the divine Son of God.

4. Jesus is the atoning Redeemer of humankind.

5. Jesus' name is the only name under heaven whereby we may be saved.

6. Jesus atoned for our sins.

7. Jesus rose physically from the dead.

8. Jesus ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father.

9. Jesus will return again to judge the living and the dead.

10. The third person in the Godhead is the Holy Ghost, a personage of spirit.

11. Jesus established a church in the meridian of time.

12. The church that Jesus established fell into apostasy after the passing of the apostles.

13. The Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820.

14. The church that Jesus established was restored in 1830.

15. The Aaronic priesthood was restored under the hands of John the Baptist.

16. The Melchizedek priesthood was restored under the hands of Peter, James, and John.

17. We lived before we came to earth.

18. We will live again after we die.

19. We will receive resurrected bodies.

20. Through authorized temple ordinances, our family relationships can survive beyond death.

Now, obviously, I could multiply the items on this list several times. But it will do.

To me -- and others here are welcome to disagree if they choose -- it is beyond reasonable doubt that no member of the Church can publicly and vocally deny these doctrines, or even a single one of them, without consequences for his or her membership status in the Church. That is to say, such a person would almost certainly not be ordained a bishop (as, for whatever it's worth, I have been) or given a teaching position in the Church (I'm currently a Gospel Doctrine teacher, and, for what it's worth, served for nearly a decade, some years back, on the Church's official Gospel Doctrine curriculum writing committee). In fact, such a person's membership in the Church could, conceivably, be jeopardized by vocal, public denial of any or all of these propositions.

By contrast, arguments have been made by professors at the Church's university (bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, and temple presidents among them) and by other members in good standing against upstate New York as the site of the final Jaredite and Nephite battles. Such arguments have appeared, without even the slightest repercussions, in books published by the Church's wholly owned publishing house, in the Church's own official magazine, and in public lectures at BYU's Education Week.

You dismiss these facts, but I ask you to consider, seriously, whether it's even remotely imaginable that Deseret Book would publish a volume arguing against even a single one of the twenty propositions I list just above. Is it thinkable that a denial of even a single one of them would be published in the Ensign? Can anybody who knows BYU imagine that a professor would long survive at BYU who denied one or more of them in his teaching at the University, or in lectures at Education Week?

Is it even remotely conceivable that a secretary in the Office of the First Presidency would send out a fax indicating that the Church has no official position on one or more of the twenty propositions in that list? Can you think of a single instance, in that list, where you would be able to find language in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism declaring that the Church takes no official stance on one of those twenty matters?

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.

It is, I suppose, theoretically possible that Ms. Carla Ogden (who, I'm told, was still working in the Office of the First Presidency in 2009) routinely takes it upon herself to send faxes out to random members of the Church denying that the Church has any official position on (to choose three random examples from the list I supplied above) the existence of God, whether or not Jesus plays a role in human salvation, and the prospect of the survival of the soul after death.

But this seems somewhat unlikely to me.

If you do not believe that the Carla Ogden fax was received in response to the inquiry from Bill Hamblin to Michael Watson to which I've alluded, can you suggest a more plausible scenario? You will have to account for my evident zeal to lie about it (which Professor Hamblin has implicitly endorsed on this very thread). You'll want to explain our brazen lie back in 1993, along with our obvious indifference to the possibility of losing our jobs and our membership in the Church by forging a communication from Michael Watson. You'll have to explain how we chose Carla Ogden as our accomplice, and what her motive may have been in risking her job by sending out a fax contradicting explicit and official Church doctrine on her own authority. And so on and so forth.

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?

Well, it's been very nearly two decades, and I'm not William Hamblin. But it seems reasonable to me that, seeking a clarification regarding the 1990 letter, he sought it from the author of the 1990 letter. And I know that I, at least, would be very hesitant to bother a counselor in the First Presidency regarding such a matter. Had President Hinckley himself been the author of the letter, the inquiry probably would have gone to him. As it was, he was not, so it didn't.

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.

I've intimated no such thing.

I've expressly said, though, that, while there is no question that the overwhelming consensus in the Church has long been that the final Nephite and Jaredite battles occurred in upstate New York, there exists no explicit revelation to that effect. Nor does there appear to exist any clear official announcement that that represents the binding doctrine of the Church. (If such a statement existed, advocates of a New York location would surely appeal to it, rather than to an obscure private letter from a secretary to an Oklahoma bishop, as Exhibit A for their claim.) And I've argued the quite obvious proposition that, if no clear prior statement of this alleged doctrine exists, a private letter from a secretary to an individual bishop seems an extraordinarily unlikely venue for announcing a new doctrine.

So why seek official information (quasi or otherwise) from a non authoritative source to begin with???

Clarification of a letter was sought from the person who wrote the letter.

Particularly when all that was received was a "cut and paste" from another non-official source?

The inquiry didn't dictate the nature of the response. Are you suggesting that Professor Hamblin should not have sought clarification of the 1990 letter from the author of the 1990 letter because Professor Hamblin should have known that the response would be a quotation from a book? How could he have known that?

That the Office of the First Presidency chose to respond with a quotation from the newly published Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which had been produced under the authority of the Church's university and the appointed guidance of two members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, doesn't seem to me to be a weakness in the reply.

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?

I claim, as I've said at least a dozen times, that there is no official Church 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."

You do realize, I hope, that I believe -- and that I've expressly said in this very thread that I believe -- that an ancient prophet named Moroni hid the gold plates containing some of the records of the Nephite and Jaredite nations in a hill near Palmyra, New York, and that Joseph Smith was directed to that hill in 1827 by the resurrected Moroni to get these plates and translate a portion of them, and that this translation is the Book of Mormon.

I've been exceedingly careful to speak, always, about the location of the final Jaredite and Nephite battles, which I believe to have occurred elsewhere.

When do you believe this "market share", that you seem to allude to so arbitrarily,

I see nothing "arbitrary" about my statement.

My genuine sense is that, particularly in the aftermath of the publication of such books as David Palmer's In Search of Cumorah and John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, the percentage of believers who think that the final Jaredite and Nephite battles occurred outside of New York state has to be larger now than it was, say, in the 1950s or 1960s. I never ever encountered that view when I was growing up in California nor as a student at BYU. But I encounter it very commonly now -- and from at least a few General Authorities when the subject has come up -- and I myself now hold it.

the will be meaningful enough to get the Church to revise it's official website to what you are promoting?

I see no need to revise anything in the passage that you quote from the Church's website.

[cdowis]

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.

Let me put it this way.

Book of Mormon geography is not a doctrinal issue and never has been. It is a matter of factual investigation in which anyone may express an opinion based on their own analysis of the facts.

There is only one certainty, that there is a hill in NY called the Hill Cumorah where the plates were buried. The church web site made a proper and correct statement of this fact. But it is a matter of comjecture whether that NY hill is the same hill mentioned as the location of the battle of extinction in the BOM text.

I do not understand why this is such a difficult concept for some to grasp.

Edited January 9, 2012 by cdowis

[sethpayne]

Precisely.

David Bokovoy gave another good example above:

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.

Understood. I see where you are coming from.

Seth

[cdowis]

Bob Oliverio complains:

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.

As a new convert, may I suggest that you frequent the Social Hall forum, and make uplifting posts. This is an apologetic forum, and we give hard answers to questions.

If our answers are not factual, if you disagree, let us know. We will not take it personally.

Edited January 9, 2012 by cdowis

[Stargazer]

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.

I came into this discussion just now, still in the afterglow from a superlative Fast and Testimony day. I felt like I was swimming in the Spirit for literally hours, and glorying in the testimony of Jesus and of the Book of Mormon. This thread just makes me shake my head in wonder, because of all the gnat-straining and camel-swallowing going on with certain individuals who just can't seem to connect the dots.

Jesus is the Christ. Joseph Smith was His prophet. The Book of Mormon is inspired and true. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the sole repository of the Priesthood of God. If you find your faith wavering because the LGT and HGT are just not specified in Church official doctrine, then you have a bigger problem than you think. I happen to be convinced that Meldrum is completely wrong, but it doesn't matter whether he is or he isn't. Because the Book of Mormon is not on trial. You are.

10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these dwords, for they are the ewords of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they fteach all men that they should do good.

11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye — for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.

2 Nephi 33:10,11

[Scott Lloyd]

It's QUITE CLEAR that it was written at the request of President Hinckley. Why do you seem intent on minimizing this important fact? [snip]

I've been following the issue of the MIchael Watson letter for a number of years now, and Bob Oliverio's arguments are starting to sound familiar, including the resort to the "Guide to the Scriptures" reference and the refusal to take cognizance of clear explanations that have already been given.

I would hate to think that Bob Oliverio is a shill and that the "recent convert"/securities attorney persona is just an act, but I suppose it wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened on these boards.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

I came into this discussion just now, still in the afterglow from a superlative Fast and Testimony day. I felt like I was swimming in the Spirit for literally hours, and glorying in the testimony of Jesus and of the Book of Mormon. This thread just makes me shake my head in wonder, because of all the gnat-straining and camel-swallowing going on with certain individuals who just can't seem to connect the dots.

Jesus is the Christ. Joseph Smith was His prophet. The Book of Mormon is inspired and true. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the sole repository of the Priesthood of God. If you find your faith wavering because the LGT and HGT are just not specified in Church official doctrine, then you have a bigger problem than you think. I happen to be convinced that Meldrum is completely wrong, but it doesn't matter whether he is or he isn't. Because the Book of Mormon is not on trial. You are.

Wonderful entry. Thank you. And all of the bitterness, contention, persecution, and hatred because the Book of Mormon does one thing: testify that Jesus is the Christ. It always makes me wonder how many live their entire lives and never understand the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Bob Crockett]

I would hate to think that Bob Oliverio is a shill and that the "recent convert"/securities attorney persona is just an act, but I suppose it wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened on these boards.

I'd give the fellow the benefit of the doubt, although I wonder I wonder why he isn't on martindale.com, the national on-line data base which lists all lawyers.

I think the question of the HIll Cumorah that he poses is completely legitimate. I've been labeled a troll for raising the question here. My old point remains that if a speaker in a Stake Conference spent twenty minutes explaining the two Cumorah theories he/she'd likely be criticized or censured by local authorities, whereas a speaker testifying to the contrary would not receive any criticism.

[Freedom]

I'd give the fellow the benefit of the doubt, although I wonder I wonder why he isn't on martindale.com, the national on-line data base which lists all lawyers.

I think the question of the HIll Cumorah that he poses is completely legitimate. I've been labeled a troll for raising the question here. My old point remains that if a speaker in a Stake Conference spent twenty minutes explaining the two Cumorah theories he/she'd likely be criticized or censured by local authorities, whereas a speaker testifying to the contrary would not receive any criticism.

I am quite confident that anybody at a stake conference proposing any theory at all would be censured. You do not find any such talks at general conference either.

[Bob Crockett]

Well, maybe. It certainly is a knotty and fascinating topic.

I remember reading John Sorenson's work for the first time and thinking, wow, this is just sheer unmitigated speculation. I have re-read it several times and think the same thing.

And, I also wonder why so much ink is spent on trying to pin the Book of Mormon to MesoAmerica, but then I recall that Milton R. Hunter got church funds for the NWAF for that express purpose, so something's going on.

[The Nehor]

Every time I read someone demanding a yes or no answer or demanding simplicity I think of Raymond Terrific and get a good chuckle.

[Calm]

I recall that Milton R. Hunter got church funds for the NWAF for that express purpose, so something's going on.

Don't remember it this way, could you reference this (bolded) comment please, ie. that the Church gave funding for this specific purpose.

[Bob Crockett]

Don't remember it this way, could you reference this (bolded) comment please, ie. that the Church gave funding for this specific purpose.

Compare Charles Larson's book on Ferguson to Dr. Peterson's blurb at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=1&id=532. Ferguson was plainly out to prove the Book of Mormon, although to get funding he had to dress the NWAF as an objective organization. And, indeed, something like the NWAF was completely legitimate for BYU or other western university scholars. And, it was objective as it was probably created. But its founder, and there was no doubt about his objectives, sought to find Zarahemla or some such place. I have repeatedly seen snide comments about the NWAF's "agenda" in rather standard archaeological works. Whereas I think such comments are unfair, they are there.

[Daniel Peterson]

The NWAF, which included several prominent non-LDS archaeologists among its leaders, was expressly told not to focus on the Book of Mormon:

http://maxwellinstit...16&num=1&id=532

That said, the Church's support for it was clearly motivated by an interest in the Book of Mormon's presumed setting in Pre-Classical Mesoamerica. It's scarcely coincidental that no comparable Church funding was given for work in the Upper Midwest or in Upstate New York. Nauvoo Restoration, Inc. concentrated on nineteenth-century . . . Nauvoo.

I've been following the issue of the MIchael Watson letter for a number of years now, and Bob Oliverio's arguments are starting to sound familiar, including the resort to the "Guide to the Scriptures" reference and the refusal to take cognizance of clear explanations that have already been given.

I would hate to think that Bob Oliverio is a shill and that the "recent convert"/securities attorney persona is just an act, but I suppose it wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened on these boards.

I confess that the thought has occurred to me, too. I hope not. I get tired of the silly games.

I'd give the fellow the benefit of the doubt, although I wonder I wonder why he isn't on martindale.com, the national on-line data base which lists all lawyers.

I've been giving him the benefit of the doubt. But you raise a good additional point.

My old point remains that if a speaker in a Stake Conference spent twenty minutes explaining the two Cumorah theories he/she'd likely be criticized or censured by local authorities, whereas a speaker testifying to the contrary would not receive any criticism.

I think it would be entirely inappropriate for a speaker in stake conference or in sacrament meeting to spend any time arguing for either a New York Cumorah or a Mesoamerican Cumorah. These are not doctrinal matters. The precise GPS coördinates of the final Nephite and Jaredite battles are not essential nor even germane to one's salvation, and they have little or nothing to do with living a good, Gospel-centered life.

[Bob Crockett]

The NWAF, which included several prominent non-LDS archaeologists among its leaders, was expressly told not to focus on the Book of Mormon:

You plainly know more about then NWAF than I do, and my education has been based mostly on Charles Larson's bio of Ferguson.

But, it is too bad there are snarky references to the NWAF in the academic or popular/academic literature. I'm struggling to find the most recent one -- I think it was a recent popular diffusionist book -- Columbus was Last.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Freedom]

Well, maybe. It certainly is a knotty and fascinating topic.

I remember reading John Sorenson's work for the first time and thinking, wow, this is just sheer unmitigated speculation. I have re-read it several times and think the same thing.

And, I also wonder why so much ink is spent on trying to pin the Book of Mormon to MesoAmerica, but then I recall that Milton R. Hunter got church funds for the NWAF for that express purpose, so something's going on.

I find the theories fascinating, but they have nothing to do with doctrine. I am of the opinion that the events took place in central america but if the prophet stood up in general conference and echoed my opinion, I do not believe it would make this interpretation any more valid. It would only demonstrate that the prophet had the same opinion. I doubt very much that he would make such a statement, however. Debating them theories is one thing, but defending one or the other as doctrinal is patently absurd.

[Freedom]

You plainly know more about then NWAF than I do, and my education has been based mostly on Charles Larson's bio of Ferguson.

But, it is too bad there are snarky references to the NWAF in the academic or popular/academic literature. I'm struggling to find the most recent one -- I think it was a recent popular diffusionist book -- Columbus was Last.

It teaches us that there needs to be a separation of church, state and science.

[Calm]

Compare Charles Larson's book on Ferguson to Dr. Peterson's blurb at http://maxwellinstit...16&num=1&id=532. Ferguson was plainly out to prove the Book of Mormon, although to get funding he had to dress the NWAF as an objective organization. And, indeed, something like the NWAF was completely legitimate for BYU or other western university scholars. And, it was objective as it was probably created. But its founder, and there was no doubt about his objectives, sought to find Zarahemla or some such place. I have repeatedly seen snide comments about the NWAF's "agenda" in rather standard archaeological works. Whereas I think such comments are unfair, they are there.

That very well may have been Ferguson's reason, but that is significantly different from what the Church's reasoning was or the people who actually did the work.

And I have seen the snide comments as well, it's too bad considering the effort that was put into avoiding that POV, but people's interpretations don't always match reality.

Edited January 9, 2012 by calmoriah

[Duncan]

I am quite confident that anybody at a stake conference proposing any theory at all would be censured. You do not find any such talks at general conference either.

I recall a Know your Religion from the mid 90's with Byron R. Merrill from BYU talking about the two Cumorah theory among other interesting tidbits of information

[Pahoran]

I'm neither a needler nor browbeater of believers. I'm just humbly pointing out the fact that Dan's magisterial decrees, fearsome and awe-inspiring as they may be, are nevertheless powerless to change history. Dan's edicts, no matter how forceful or numerous, simply cannot change the fact that a multiplicity of prophets and apostles have declared from official pulpits and in official publications that the Nephite Hill Cumorah is in New York.

If your case was that strong, you wouldn't need to do something as transparently manipulative and palpably dishonest as to triumphantly display a photocopy of a letter from a secretary while suppressing the relevant fact that the same secretary subsequently modified his statement.

The fact that you do have to resort to such manipulations demonstrates the weakness of your position.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Compare Charles Larson's book on Ferguson to Dr. Peterson's blurb at http://maxwellinstit...16&num=1&id=532. Ferguson was plainly out to prove the Book of Mormon, although to get funding he had to dress the NWAF as an objective organization. And, indeed, something like the NWAF was completely legitimate for BYU or other western university scholars. And, it was objective as it was probably created. But its founder, and there was no doubt about his objectives, sought to find Zarahemla or some such place. I have repeatedly seen snide comments about the NWAF's "agenda" in rather standard archaeological works. Whereas I think such comments are unfair, they are there.

Charlie "It's all over" Larson whose anti-Mormon hatchet job on the Book of Abraham was pimped all over Utah by the IRR gang? That Charles Larson?

You think he's some kind of objective scholar, I take it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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.

Mr Oliverio,

you claim to be a lawyer. It is my understanding that lawyers are trained to read documents carefully, analytically and precisely. Therefore I am surprised to see that the important distinction between the letter was written at the request of President Hinckley and the contents of the letter were personally dictated by President Hinckley seems to be lost on you.

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."

Mr Oliverio,

you claim to be a lawyer. It is my understanding that lawyers are trained to read documents carefully, analytically and precisely. Therefore I am surprised to see you triumphantly producing the Church's identification of the New York Cumorah as the place where Moroni hid the golden plates -- which Dan unequivocally accepts -- as if it supports the folklore position that it is the location of the Jaredite and Nephite final battles -- which is the actual point in dispute, and which of course it does not support.

If I was looking for a solicitor, I might be inclined to look for one who reads a little more carefully, myself.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Crockett]

Charlie "It's all over" Larson whose anti-Mormon hatchet job on the Book of Abraham was pimped all over Utah by the IRR gang? That Charles Larson?

You think he's some kind of objective scholar, I take it?

Regards,

Pahoran

My mistake. It was Stan Larson.

And, no, I didn't think Stan's book was objective but really, what is.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My mistake. It was Stan Larson.

And, no, I didn't think Stan's book was objective but really, what is.

An honest mistake.