Revisiting the Watson Letter.

[_Chap]

Returning to the OP:

We now have the following dialog on that thread:

Bob Oliverio (repeating the Watson letter post):

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?

Freedom:

The church makes it very clear that the location of the Book of Mormon events are not known. There is no official position on the location.

Bob Oliverio:

Thanks. Can you provide a link or reference to this official statement. I was converted and taught that Cumorah was in NY. That's why the letter provided above confirmed what had been taught to me. Again, when did this change?

How long till Mr Oliverio is told either:

1. You are a troll, and you're banned.

or:

2. It's your own stupid fault for just believing what the missionaries taught you without studying it out for yourself.

Or both?

[_Kishkumen]

Returning to the OP:

Gee, I'm so disappointed. I was very ready to learn all about my secret motives for not caring about Book of Mormon geography- a subject of inquiry that is hampered either by the fictional nature of the book or the paucity of the evidence. Take your pick.

[_Kishkumen]

How long till Mr Oliverio is told either:

1. You are a troll, and you're banned.

or:

2. It's your own stupid fault for just believing what the missionaries taught you without studying it out for yourself.

Or both?

Either way, it looks like MDD is living up to its reputation as an apostasy factory.

But, as we know, it will certainly be Oliverio's fault that he is treated like crap by a group of people who take their self-election to the role of defender of the faith as a license to savage their fellow members.

[_Kishkumen]

While this may not be the final word on Book of Mormon geography, I find this useful:

[_Aristotle Smith]

But, as we know, it will certainly be Oliverio's fault that he is treated like crap by a group of people who take their self-election to the role of defender of the faith as a license to savage their fellow members.

I'm starting to feel sorry for Bob Oliverio myself. The guy is continually repeating a request for something official to answer his question. And so far they have been ignoring him completely. I guess that's probably the best they can do.

In any case it really does pain me to see this kind of stuff. Who knows, maybe Bob will wise up and go live his life and forget about all this. But, if he has already made it as far as posting to a message board, he probably won't stop.

And to think, this whole thing could be prevented if any one of the fifteen big would man up and say something authoritative. I guess life's pretty busy leading a multinational corporation with vast real estate and stock holdings. That's Jesus' real estate and stock holdings and that crap ain't gonna manage itself.

[_sock puppet]

it really does pain me to see this kind of stuff. Who knows, maybe Bob will wise up and go live his life and forget about all this. But, if he has already made it as far as posting to a message board, he probably won't stop.

So one would "wise up" if he 'lives his life and forgets about all this'? Now, if by "this" you mean Mormonism, I agree. If by "this" you mean the problems with Mormonism's truth claims, I couldn't disagree with you more. Living in Mormon ignorance is not 'wising up'--so living is the antithesis to wisdom. If by "this" you mean teasing the Mopologetic cat that keeps chasing its own tail, why would it be wise for Bob to not enjoy this as many of us do?

And to think, this whole thing could be prevented if any one of the fifteen big would man up and say something authoritative. I guess life's pretty busy leading a multinational corporation with vast real estate and stock holdings. That's Jesus' real estate and stock holdings and that crap ain't gonna manage itself.

Maybe it's because they have over the years stepped in enough crap that the FP/12 know better than to say anything of significance--unless it's about earrings.

[_Kishkumen]

And to think, this whole thing could be prevented if any one of the fifteen big would man up and say something authoritative. I guess life's pretty busy leading a multinational corporation with vast real estate and stock holdings. That's Jesus' real estate and stock holdings and that crap ain't gonna manage itself.

I guess such daring can't be bought for money.

[_TAK]

And to think, this whole thing could be prevented if any one of the fifteen big would man up and say something authoritative. I guess life's pretty busy leading a multinational corporation with vast real estate and stock holdings. That's Jesus' real estate and stock holdings and that crap ain't gonna manage itself.

I guess such daring can't be bought for money.

I suspect the old white men don't give a rat's arse what the members think so longs as the tithing dollars keep flowing in..

[_Joey]

Just saw that thread. Looks like Metcalf put Provo in his place about the supposed Watson letter to Hamblin (as if it ever existed!). Now the mods are threatening to close the thread as facts and honesty start to build against Provo again! Good to see he's still posting from behind the walls of the fort!! Only in Provo!!

[_Buffalo]

What would be the point? What is it, exactly, that you hope to prove?

It's been roughly nineteen years, and it wasn't all that dramatic a thing when it happened. But whether it was a letter with Michael Watson's signature on it or a fax sent by Carla Ogden on behalf of her boss, Michael Watson, it was a communication from Michael Watson to Bill Hamblin, in response to an inquiry, as I recall, from Bill Hamblin to Michael Watson. We didn't simply invent or inflate the reference in the article.

I'm not quite sure why this looms so large in the minds of certain critics. Do they imagine that they've finally caught Bill Hamblin and me in a flat-out lie? If so, they're simply wrong. I may be, and in fact am, many things. But "liar" is not among them. Does it really matter that a communication from the Office of the First Presidency quoted a relevant statement from the quasi-official Encyclopedia of Mormonism instead of inventing its own synonymous boilerplate language? Not that I can see.

View PostBrent Metcalfe, on 24 December 2011 - 09:44 PM, said:
Kind regards,

LOL. Right. Sure.

So defensive!

tapirrider, on 26 December 2011 - 06:11 AM, said:
The radiocarbon dating of the horse skull was in print in 2004

That may well be. I've never seen the book.

There are several books published each year, nationally and internationally, that I don't read. On several different subjects, including my own specific professional field.

View Posttapirrider, on 26 December 2011 - 06:11 AM, said:
It was sloppy to make such a controversial claim about that horse skull without first checking to see if radiocarbon dating had settled the case.

Perhaps. And, if I made an error, I can promise you that it wasn't my first. And I'm reasonably certain that I'll make at least two more before I die. Possibly three.

Moreover, I'm not alone in this. Other scholars are fallible, too, from what I understand.

Had I been writing an article or a monograph on the question of Pre-Columbian horses, I would have done as complete a literature review as I could. For an off the cuff remark on a video, though, the typical standard is a bit more casual.

I'm happy to be corrected when correction is warranted. Some of my critics will find this impossible to believe, and will rise up in a chorus of indignant protest when they read this, but I do actually care about truth and accuracy. And, on the whole, I think I do reasonably well.

View PostMortal Man, on 26 December 2011 - 01:49 PM, said:
The only thing more official is D&C 128:20.

Which -- strikingly -- doesn't identify upstate New York as the scene of the final Nephite and Jaredite battles.

The scriptures are meaningless unless they support the apologetic hypothesis du jour.

View Postlivy111us, on 24 December 2011 - 10:02 PM, said:
That is not the issue. No one here (to my knowledge) has filmed non-LDS scholars for an obvious Mormon film which provides "evidence" for The Book of Mormon, while only telling them that it was a video on the history of their expertise. Then editing their comments so they seem to agree with the premise of the video. After that, claiming that these oblivious scholars agree with and support your theory. That is what this thread is about. No one is claiming that Mesoamerican theorists have non-LDS scholars who support them.

There is an enormous difference between quoting something said by another scholar as part of the chain of evidence one is using in order to argue for one's own position or conclusion -- this is not only common in historical and similar scholarship, but essentially standard operating procedure -- and doing what the Meldrum film seems to have done. (See above.)

When I argue for a thesis -- whether it's a Mormon-related one or an Islam-related one -- I never presume that the scholars I'm quoting agree with my thesis. Presumably they don't. Presumably it's new. If it weren't, there would be no real point in my arguing it, it probably wouldn't be published, and it surely wouldn't gain me much academic cred if it were just a rehash of common ideas. They might even disagree with me. That's the way the scholarly game is played.

There's also a very big difference between quoting, in one's own manuscript, from articles or monographs or books published by others -- they're in the public domain, and fair game for such use -- and recruiting people to appear in a film. The former is, again, the very warp and woof of scholarship in history, the social sciences, and the humanities. And the latter? Not so much. Like scarcely ever. Very different things, subject to different protocols and sensitivities.

I'm going to C&P his responses in case they're deleted. LOL @ Peterson pretending to be engaging in "scholarship."