Bob Crockett Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 (edited) 16 minutes ago, pogi said: Based on what revelation? Apparently the First Presidency in 1990 disagreed. Is everything said in general conference doctrine? President Young said a lot of things in general conference about slavery. Should we accept that they were not uninformed opinions because they were said in conference? I have written a paper on the second fax. It lacks all the necessary indicia of authenticity and may or likely may be a fraud. My published papers tend to emphasize the reliability of questionable evidence; I wrote a 60-page article about the Mountain Meadows Massacre assessing the reliability of various proofs relied upon by Juanita Brooks. I suggested ways to improve upon the authenticity of the fax but that has never been done. The fax was addressed to a Farms staffer and there was never any affidavit or statement from him about the fax after receipt. It was certainly within FARMS's power to do so; failure to do so leads one to the conclusion that the fax is a fraud. That leaves the first Watson letter. The Hill is in New York. You say that general conference statements from the 1920s are not considered definitive today. I might be sympathetic to that view if you produced more modern evidence of equal dignity contradicting those statements. There is not even anything such remotely there. Take the Adam God theory. It was stated over the pulpit and there were questions about the statement and the reliability of the transcription. But general authorities have since come out and denounced the doctrine, leaving us to trust more modern statements. Nothing like that exists for the Cumorah issue; the Church's official 1920s statement stands uncontradicted. Edited January 12, 2021 by Bob Crockett Link to comment
Bob Crockett Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 9 minutes ago, mrmarklin said: I stated INFORMED opinion. And the GAs are certainly entitled to theirs.😃 Prophetic pronouncements are in the four Standard Works. That is not true; I won't go into it. But statements from the First Presidency over the pulpit during a General Conference are considered "authoritative." Certainly, they are uncontradicted. Link to comment
Bob Crockett Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 14 minutes ago, pogi said: President Young said a lot of things in general conference about slavery. Should we accept that they were not uninformed (by God) opinions because they were said in conference? We are not talking about slavery here. We are talking about uncontradicted statements about the Hill Cumorah. Link to comment
pogi Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: It lacks all the necessary indicia of authenticity and may or likely may be a fraud. Ok, Rudy 27 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: You say that general conference statements from the 1920s are not considered definitive today. I might be sympathetic to that view if you produced more modern evidence of equal dignity contradicting those statements. There is not even anything such remotely there. Equal dignity? I personally don't care about subjective dignity when it comes to deciding what is and is not revelation or official positions of the church. There is the following published statement however. You seem to be doing exactly what the current First Presidency AND Quorum of the Twelve Apostles "urge" us not to do - advocate for a position that "would imply prophetic or church support for those theories." Quote The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. President M. Russell Ballard, Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, reminded members that “the Book of Mormon is not a textbook on topography. Speculation on the geography of the Book of Mormon may mislead instead of enlighten; such a study can be a distraction from its divine purpose.” Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken. However, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/book-of-mormon-geography?lang=eng How can you disregard that? I find the unanimous voice of the entire First Presidency AND Quorum of the Twelve to be extremely dignified and perhaps even more dignified than the voice of the First Presidency alone. General Conference may have dignity, but that dignity doesn't make anything doctrine. Edited January 12, 2021 by pogi 3 Link to comment
Bob Crockett Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 (edited) 14 minutes ago, pogi said: Ok, Rudy Equal dignity? What the heck does that mean? I don't care about subjective dignity when it comes to revelation and official positions of the church. Neither should you. There is this however. You seem to be doing exactly what the current First Presidency AND Quorum of the Twelve Apostles "urge" us not to do - advocate for a position that "would imply prophetic or church support for those theories." How can you disregard that? I find the unanimous voice of the entire First Presidency AND Quorum of the Twelve to be extremely dignified and perhaps even more dignified than the voice of the First Presidency alone. My name is "Bob," not Rudy. Be cool and respectful, please. The "equal dignities" doctrine says that if you are going to contradict an official position, you'd better have something of "equal dignity" to the quality of the original pronoucement. Thus, one shouldn't be able to contradict a statement by a member of the First Presidency over the pulpit in General Conference with an unauthenticated fax. As my paper on the subject points out, when the Brethren talk about the lack of an official church position on the Book of Mormon geography, they are not referring to the location of the Hill Cumorah. There are plenty of statements, official and unofficial, pinning the Hill Cumorah to New York. Perhaps you can point me to lesson material or a sermon or a General Authority book supporting the Two HIll Cumorah Theory. Please? Focus on this question, please. Edited January 12, 2021 by Bob Crockett Link to comment
pogi Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: My name is "Bob," not Rudy. Be cool and respectful, please. The "equal dignities" doctrine says that if you are going to contradict an official position, you'd better have something of "equal dignity" to the quality of the original pronoucement. Thus, one shouldn't be able to contradict a statement by a member of the First Presidency over the pulpit in General Conference with an unauthenticated fax. As my paper on the subject points out, when the Brethren talk about the lack of an official church position on the Book of Mormon geography, they are not referring to the location of the Hill Cumorah. There are plenty of statements, official and unofficial, pinning the Hill Cumorah to New York. Perhaps you can point me to lesson material or a sermon or a General Authority book supporting the Two HIll Cumorah Theory. Please? Focus on this question, please. The Rudy comment was a playful jab. No offense. Can you please site this "equal dignity" church doctrine? Can you please tell me what makes the united voice of the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 less dignified than a statement by the First Presidency alone? Is it just the setting (conference)? 19 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: As my paper on the subject points out, when the Brethren talk about the lack of an official church position on the Book of Mormon geography, they are not referring to the location of the Hill Cumorah. How can you say they are not referring to the Hill Cumorah? Seems pretty clear to me: Quote The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. Unless specifically exempted (which it wasn't), that would include the location of the Hill Cumorah (a Book of Mormon event). 19 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: Perhaps you can point me to lesson material or a sermon or a General Authority book supporting the Two HIll Cumorah Theory. Please? Focus on this question, please. That would be strange if I could. Let me remind you: Quote The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. Edited January 12, 2021 by pogi 1 Link to comment
Bob Crockett Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 1 minute ago, pogi said: The Rudy comment was a playful jab. No offense. Can you please site this "equal dignity doctrine"? Can you please tell me what makes the united voice of the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 less dignified than a statement by the First Presidency alone? Is it just the setting (conference)? How can you say they are not referring to the Hill Cumorah? Seems pretty clear to me: Unless specifically exempted (which it wasn't), that would include the location of the Hill Cumorah (a Book of Mormon event). That would be strange if I could. Let me remind you: The equal dignities doctrine is well known by authors and scholars. No cite coming. Can you please answer my question in bold above? Link to comment
InCognitus Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 7 hours ago, CV75 said: I hope there is someone you can speak with in-person to help you settle the emotional aspects of this. You are smart to wait until you are in a better frame of mind before making sense of new facts, opinions and beliefs that come your way. Hang in there! Especially while sitting on a roof! 1 Link to comment
pogi Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: The equal dignities doctrine is well known by authors and scholars. No cite coming. Since when do we let well known authors and scholars dictate official Church proceedings and "doctrine"? There is absolutely no Church precedent or revelation for this doctrine. I can show you plenty of precedent for following the "living" prophets, however. 19 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: Can you please answer my question in bold above? I did. Can you please answer my question about why you think the quote I listed is less dignified when it is backed by ALL the brethren, and not just 3. That seems to make it more dignified and official to me. Edited January 12, 2021 by pogi 1 Link to comment
AtlanticMike Posted January 12, 2021 Author Share Posted January 12, 2021 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: No, that's not what I said ... at all. Even if that's what you got from my post (because, say, for argument's sake, I was unclear expressing myself), if you took the time to read what I linked to, you would have reached the opposite conclusion. You seem to be determined to take offense, and/or to misread me. Read what I said again: If one is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and if one has a halfway-functioning brain, questions are inevitable. Inevitability of questions notwithstanding, however, doubt and faith are choices. Personally, I don't question Book of Mormon geography because the question of Book of Mormon geography is irrelevant to my testimony of the Book of Mormon and of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ (and again, if that's not the conclusion you drew from what I wrote because, again [for argument's sake] I was unclear expressing myself, it would have been impossible for you to sustain that conclusion after reading what I linked to). So I tried to message you privately but it wouldn't let me send it, I dont know if that's because you have me blocked or for some other reason. So I'll talk to you here and then I'll shut up about this since I've turned it into a soap opera.To be honest I pretty much understand what most people are trying to convey through their post on here, but to be honest, sometimes I don't understand what you or ahab are getting at sometimes. And I admit that's probably my fault, I dont understand your humor sometimes. So I apologize for upsetting you. You've met me at my worst, I'm going through a faith crisis and my brain hasnt slowed down for the past month. It's almost as if I've somehow captured a tornado in my head and it won't stop. So I promise I'll read your post a few times before commenting from now on. I'll calm down soon. It's not you man. 1 Link to comment
Bob Crockett Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 6 minutes ago, pogi said: Since when do we let well known authors and scholars dictate official Church proceedings and "doctrine"? There is absolutely no Church precedent or revelation for this doctrine. I can show you plenty of precedent for following the "living" prophets, however. I did. Can you please answer my question about why you think the quote I listed is less dignified when it is backed by ALL the brethren, and not just 3. That seems to make it more dignified and official to me. You have not answered my question. You've avoided it. I'm going to move on from dialogue with you, if that's ok. Link to comment
pogi Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: You have not answered my question. You've avoided it. I'm going to move on from dialogue with you, if that's ok. That's fine with me. Just don't pretend like you haven't avoided my questions. I did answer your question (which wasn't really a question at all, but a request for a reference). I made it pretty clear that we won't be able to find such a teaching. That would be pretty hypocritical if we could, given the quote I referenced. What kind of response were you looking for? I can't provide a reference. I thought I made that pretty clear. How is that avoiding your request for a reference? I never made a claim that we could find one, so this seems to be like a straw-man to me anyway. My point is that they don't have an official position, why would you then ask for a reference for an official church teachings on the location of the hill? Seems like you are missing my point. Edited January 13, 2021 by pogi 1 Link to comment
Tacenda Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, InCognitus said: Especially while sitting on a roof! Good one, funny! It says you are aware of what Mike does for a living and interested in his life. Edited January 13, 2021 by Tacenda Link to comment
Tacenda Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said: So I tried to message you privately but it wouldn't let me send it, I dont know if that's because you have me blocked or for some other reason. So I'll talk to you here and then I'll shut up about this since I've turned it into a soap opera.To be honest I pretty much understand what most people are trying to convey through their post on here, but to be honest, sometimes I don't understand what you or ahab are getting at sometimes. And I admit that's probably my fault, I dont understand your humor sometimes. So I apologize for upsetting you. You've met me at my worst, I'm going through a faith crisis and my brain hasnt slowed down for the past month. It's almost as if I've somehow captured a tornado in my head and it won't stop. So I promise I'll read your post a few times before commenting from now on. I'll calm down soon. It's not you man. I was the same, I came on here for the first time in 2012! And the first posts, and since, haha, have been from my faith crisis. I've loved this board though, crazy enough, because I'm talking to the horse's mouth through members still in. I guess it has helped me for some reason and I'm still a member on record. I know I'm really an anomaly though. You got this Mike, and please take it slow, on items you find out you didn't know about. There's a way to come full circle, I'm still half circle, haha! Meaning I'm not yet over my crisis, and still have a ways to go before I fully believe again. I guess you can't take the Mormon out of this girl! Edited January 13, 2021 by Tacenda Link to comment
AtlanticMike Posted January 13, 2021 Author Share Posted January 13, 2021 22 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Good one, funny! It says you are aware of what Mike does for a living and interested in his life. I didnt catch that when it was written, that is funny🤣. Link to comment
AtlanticMike Posted January 13, 2021 Author Share Posted January 13, 2021 15 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I was the same, I came on here for the first time in 2012! And the first posts, and since, haha, have been from my faith crisis. I've loved this board though, crazy enough, because I'm talking to the horse's mouth through members still in. I guess it has helped me for some reason and I'm still a member on record. I know I'm really an anomaly though. You got this Mike, and please take it slow, on items you find out you didn't know about. There's a way to come full circle, I'm still half circle, haha! Meaning I'm not yet over my crisis, and still have a ways to go before I fully believe again. I guess you can't take the Mormon out of this girl! Thank you, you have a good heart. Link to comment
Popular Post Hamba Tuhan Posted January 13, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 13, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, pogi said: My point is that they don't have an official position, why would you then ask for a reference for an official church teachings on the location of the hill? Good luck, mate. It appears that those who need the drumlin in New York State where Moroni buried the golden plates to be the same hill where, c. 35 years earlier, Mormon hid all the Nephite records except the Book of Mormon (Mormon 6:6) can be determinedly adversarial and even prone to see a conspiracy against the 'truth' of the matter: Quote Since the publication of Saints, Volume 1: The Standard of Truth, 1815–1846, some concern has been expressed online and to us personally that the text of the book has expressed a preference against a “heartland” model of Book of Mormon geography. We have been disappointed to read online commentary from individuals favoring a “heartland” model of Book of Mormon geography that asserts Saints works in subtle (and even conspiratorial) ways to suppress their views. This is not true. Much of the concern has resulted because the word “Cumorah” does not appear in Saints. This omission has led some to believe that we left out that word in order to speak against a “heartland” model. ... The purpose of Saints is to present a compelling narrative of the faith and sacrifice of early Latter-day Saints, not to weigh in (subtly or otherwise) on the various theories of Book of Mormon geography. We have sought to uphold the Church’s position of neutrality on these theories: “Though there are several plausible hypotheses regarding the geographic locations of Book of Mormon events, the Church takes no official position except that the events occurred in the Americas.” ... The reason for omitting “Cumorah” is not that the writers wanted to expunge it in order to promote a geographical theory. The reason is that there is no historical evidence that Moroni called the hill “Cumorah” in 1823. Of course, early Latter-day Saints, including Joseph Smith, later called the hill Cumorah, but the best research on the subject puts the term into common circulation no earlier than the mid-1830s. Edited January 13, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan 5 Link to comment
Calm Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: In a prior thread in this forum, now deleted for some reason, a poster said he was an editor of John Sorensen's Ensign publications, and the theory of two cumorahs was edited out of the published piece. You have misremembered this before and you were misinterpreting from the beginning as well IMO. https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/52845-just-where-is-the-hill-cumorah/?do=findComment&comment=1208975319 The original thread is here. There is a glitch going where it appears some coding is deleting the rest of the posts and it happens to the relevant post of Brant’s, but it happened to be quoted and thus saved in another post: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/52932-new-evidence-that-joseph-smith-taught-a-mesoamerican-setting-for-the-bom/?do=findComment&comment=1208974426 Edited January 13, 2021 by Calm 1 Link to comment
Bob Crockett Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 (edited) That is not the right thread. The title of the old deleted thread was "Digging" something. Whole thread deleted. On Wayback but only first page. What is the reason for pressing this theory when the Church seems to have disavowed it. Edited January 13, 2021 by Bob Crockett Link to comment
Calm Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Danite in the first link had a good response to your Sorensen claim, IMO. Quote Sorenson's original articles underwent many revisions from the time he was invited to prepare them in 1975 until the time they were published in 1984. In the final version of these he focused generally on a Mesoamerica setting and did not discuss the details of his particular model--Cerro Vigia as the possible Cumorah for example. But I am talking about what was eventually and actually published in the Ensign and in particular what I have just cited which in which Sorenson distinguishes between the "final battlefield" and the place in New York. No. Sorenson does not mention the "two-Cumorah theory" in his published version. Some might argue that the label itself is a misnomer. The idea that the final battlefield at Ramah or Cumorah was in Mesoamerica and not in New York is clearly advanced in the article, as shown in the statement I provided, which was carefully vetted and finally allowed to be published in the Ensign. https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/52845-just-where-is-the-hill-cumorah/?do=findComment&comment=1208976310 Link to comment
Calm Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 2 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: That is not the right thread. The title of the old deleted thread was "Digging" something. That was not the original thread. That was from 2012, later that the other 2011 thread. And it is not deleted. https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58389-digging-into-the-book-of-mormon/page/4/ I am correcting your false memory in this post: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58389-digging-into-the-book-of-mormon/?do=findComment&comment=1209149105 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 (edited) Cursor is John Sorenson’s son and he actually asked his dad about your claim: Quote I wrote JLS: I just read your Ensign articles again. Nice stuff! 😃 I note that there is not one mention of the hill Cumorah/Ramah by name. You do say, however, that Of course, placing the Book of Mormon lands within a limited region like Mesoamerica requires that we take a fresh look at some of the long-standing questions that have been of interest to Book of Mormon readers. For example, how did the plates of Nephi get from the final battlefield near the “narrow neck of land” 11 to where Joseph Smith obtained them in New York? Here the Book of Mormon sheds no light. 'Bob Crockett' insists that as your "Digging into the Book of Mormon" article-set was being prepared for publication, you were required to remove specific mention that the hill Cumorah in NY might not be the final battleground of the Jaredites and the Nephites. He hints that his source is Brant Gardner or Kevin Christensen. While those two are not participating in this particular thread/topic, they are both active members of MormonDialogue.com. Do you remember how things developed leading up to 1984? Sounds kinda Orwellian, doesn't it? My father replied: Pooh! There is no truth whatever in this supposed account of what took place. I was never asked by anyone at The Ensign to make any change at all to what I submitted to them. Neither of the men mentioned had anything to do with the editing process, and I cannot imagine where either of them (both are scholars I respect), or any other person, came up with this cockamamy idea. That sounds pretty darn clear and decisive to me Bolded. by me https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58389-digging-into-the-book-of-mormon/?do=findComment&comment=1209149081 Maybe this time the correction will take. Edited January 13, 2021 by Calm 2 Link to comment
Calm Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: What is the reason for pressing this theory when the Church seems to have disavowed it. If you are asking me, I am not pressing any theory; I am correcting what I believe is a false claim and what Sorensen himself outright dismissed. Gotta admit, I love his style there. “Pooh!...cockamamy”. Reminds me of my grandparents. Edited January 13, 2021 by Calm 1 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 5 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: But Smith certainly knew of the hill and did in fact name it the Hill Cumorah when recounting his story of the famed white warrior Lamanite Zelph "He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah or eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains." - Joseph Smith (As quote by Wilford Woodriff) Yes, Joseph did get on board in such usage, along with everyone else once it became a normal form of reference. The same thing happened to Nephite "interpreters," which wrongly became "Urim and Thummim." Joseph was not the innovator in any of those cases, but he went along with the same ignorant crowd most of us do. I used to think in such terms also until I found out that I was wrong. 2 Link to comment
Popular Post Calm Posted January 13, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 13, 2021 Cursor was kind enough to put up some of Sorenson’s writings. They include his story of how the Ensign articles came to be: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64203-john-l-sorenson-–-thoughts-from-my-10th-decade/?do=findComment&comment=1209419934 “John L. Sorenson wrote: Not long ago (2014) I happened to read an article by Michael A. Goodman, an associate professor of Church history and doctrine at BYU, entitled “Correlation: The Turning Point (1960s)” (pp. 258-284 in Scott C. Esplin and Kenneth L. Alford, eds., Salt Lake City: The Place Which God Prepared {Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, and Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011}). It is an interesting history of repeated efforts at “correlation” of LDS Church activities and concerns by authorities of the Church throughout most of the 20th century. It’s based on minutes of meetings of various concerned committees and some correspondence of relevant Church officers and employees. What struck me about this history was its failure to identify clearly, let alone to document, the activities of the bureaucratic entity that the Church public knows as “Correlation.” That unit is the apparatus of actual control through which most correlation efforts have been carried out. My own experience with that apparatus may provide supplementary insight into the practice of “Correlation” in the 1970s and 1980s. By the 1970s I had had considerable experience with and a record of publishing on the Book of Mormon and its ancient setting. My efforts to think seriously about those matters began at BYU in 1949 as a student under Professors M. Wells Jakeman, Sidney B. Sperry and Hugh W. Nibley; as an archaeologist in southern Mexico for the New World Archaeological Foundation in 1953; as an instructor in the BYU Archaeology Dept., 1953-55; as a predoctoral candidate in Anthropology at UCLA 1955-58; and as an avocational devotee of the subject to the present. In 1976 I was on the faculty at the Y attached to the office of the Dean of the College of Family, Home and Social Sciences and functioning as chair of the Department of University Studies (which allowed students to design their own “major” to fit their unique interests). On my own time I was engaged in synthesizing what I had come to understood of the Nephites and their scripture that I had developed by extended study of Pre-Classic Mesoamerican cultures. At that time I was approached by David Palmer, a professional chemist from the Chicago area and a Book of Mormon buff already acquainted with my published work. He desired an update on what I was doing. He then took it upon himself to talk with Jay Todd, editor of The Ensign, and persuaded him that he ought to hear what I had to say about the Book of Mormon. Brother Todd invited me to make a series of presentations at the Church Office Building where the magazine staff was located. For several months in the fall of 1976 I went to Salt Lake weekly to address an informal sort of seminar attended by various combinations of magazine staff and people from other Church departments (e.g., Curriculum). There I presented discussions sketching out the synthesis I had arrived at that constituted a plausible picture of Book of Mormon lands and history as having been located in Central America, based on geographical, archaeological and related data as well as the text. Editor Todd enthusiastically accepted my presentations as constituting information that should be published in The Ensign. At his urging I prepared over the next few months a manuscript that incorporated what I had communicated orally in the Office Building gatherings and more. It was divided into seven or eight segments, each intended to form an article in the magazine. Edited, and repeatedly re-edited, this material was submitted more than once to Correlation for their approval to appear in The Ensign. That unit consisted of a small group of junior-level editorial employees under the supervision of Brother Roy Doxey, formerly a senior religion professor at BYU. The group responded with comments on points in the material they considered “inappropriate,” representing the point of view (i.e., theirs) of Correlation. I was given access to one set of such comments and concluded that they were logically and intellectually markedly inadequate. The jockeying between Correlation and Brother Todd over this material went on for six years or more! Without resolution. At one point Jay told me, “If I could just get a copy of the manuscript to Camilla and she would read it to [Pres.] Spencer [Kimball] at night, he would approve it, I think.” (So much for the formality of getting approval from Correlation!) But he didn’t go that far. He also confided to me that Brother Doxey had let it be known that no document that claimed that the final battle of the Nephites took place any place other than in New York (which I implied and the scripture requires) would ever gain his approval, inasmuch as he was former president of the Eastern States Mission that included the New York Hill Cumorah (and its pageant) in its boundaries. In any case the impasse continued. Elder Mark E. Peterson had also weighed in with the opinion that my material, even if correct, was too great a challenge to the “tradition” common among Church members that the Nephites occupied all of North America, and “they were not ready for it.” Nor would Deseret Book consider publishing the work as a book when it had been turned down by Correlation for the magazine. Truman Madsen offered to publish it in the series he was issuing in his professorial role at BYU, but I felt that it was much more desirable that it should come out if possible under formal Church auspices to provide it a more authoritative cachet. During the early ‘80s I was asked by many people to provide them with photocopies of the ms., which had become widely known. Those I furnished at cost, a total of over 1200 (for example, my friend Leonard Arrington bought copies for all his family members). Finally a break in the inaction came in 1983-84. Critics of the Church and the Book of Mormon at that time were pointing out that assuming the idea that the Nephites occupied the whole Western Hemisphere, as most Mormons continued to do, was contrary to many archaeological and anthropological facts plainly evident. A manuscript written years earlier by Elder B. H. Roberts that reflected indeterminately on such issues was finally being prepared for academic publication at the U. of U. Church authorities were concerned about effects such ideas were having on the faith of some Latter-day Saints. An ad hoc committee was formed to consider what countermeasures might be taken (apparently no minutes were kept). It consisted of Elder Peterson, Elder Neal A. Maxwell, Elder George Lee, several other people from concerned Church offices, and, from BYU, Truman Madsen, John Welch and me (I was then in my fifth year as chair of the Department of Anthropology). In several meetings in late 1983 and early 1984 the group came to the conclusion (under Elder Maxwell’s adroit, quiet leadership) that the idea of a whole-hemispheric scene for the history of the Book of Mormon would need to be quietly given up in favor of a limited geography that was more defensible.** I was directed to prepare for The Ensign two articles based on my extensive material. Those pieces implied a geographic limitation for the Nephites’ theater of activity in Mesoamerica without explicitly challenging the folk tradition that had earlier been of concern to Elder Peterson. Others of the group were assigned to prepare pieces for publication that clarified and supported certain other points in the Book of Mormon. My articles appeared as “Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our changing understanding of ancient America and its scripture. Parts 1 and 2,” The Ensign 14 (Sept. and Oct., 1984) [i offer downloadable digital scans of of the actual in-print Ensign issues here: Part 1 and Part 2]. At the same time a signal was given to Deseret Book that it was okay for them to publish my full material that had so long been struggling to appear in The Ensign. That book came out in 1985 as An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Deseret Book and FARMS), and it has continued in print throughout the intervening nearly 30 years. Obviously the history of Correlation, or of any other aspect of Church history, cannot be properly written without including nitty-gritty details of the sort I report here. It is equally obvious that no comprehensive account could (or maybe even should) be issued under Church auspices in all its necessarily messy detail. ________________ ** The logic and advantage of this stance was well phrased by Elder Dallin H. Oaks in a talk given in 1993 (published in 2001 in Paul Y. Hoskisson, ed., Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, and reprinted in 2012 in the Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 21(1): 66-72). He said, “For me, [a now] obvious insight goes back over forty years to the first class I took on the Book of Mormon at Brigham Young University. The class was titled, somewhat boldly, the ‘Archaeology of the Book of Mormon’ [taught by Prof. Jakeman] …. Here I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who lived on the continents of North and South America …. Up to that time I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship [would] have a promising position to argue [against the historical validity of the record]. “In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of [what took place in just a part of] the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of the argument changes drastically.” 7 Link to comment
Recommended Posts