To What Extent Do Apologists Influence Doctrine?

[_cksalmon]

To whom was the first letter written?

If not to Hamblin, why would he write to the first presidency to clarify a letter written to another individual?

Tanners?

[_Mister Scratch]

To whom was the first letter written?

If not to Hamblin, why would he write to the first presidency to clarify a letter written to another individual?

Tanners?

CKsalmon is correct. Here is the text of the 1st Watson Letter:

Dear Bishop Brooks:

I have been asked to forward to you for acknowledgment and handling the enclosed copy of a letter to President Gordon B. Hinckley from Ronnie Sparks of your ward. Brother Sparks inquired about the location of the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon, where the last battle between the Nephites and Lamanites took place.

The Church has long maintained, 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.

The Brethren appreciate your assistance in responding to this inquiry, and asked that you convey to Brother Sparks their commendation for his gospel study.

Sincerely yours, (signed) F. Michael Watson Secretary to the First Presidency

(emphasis added)

Based on this letter, it is clear that Michael Watson, acting in his capacity as FP secretary, was announcing "official doctrine." (I place the phrase in quotes for what are probably pretty obvious reasons.) As you can see from the text, Watson was responding to a "Bishop Brooks," who had apparently passed along a doctrinal question posed by a member. Somehow, this letter was leaked to the Tanners, and they printed it. (There is an actual scan of the letter floating around somewhere; perhaps somebody will supply a link.)

Anyhow, Prof. Bill Hamblin apparently contrived to get Watson to produce a second letter which totally rescinded the first one, thus overturning many years of Church doctrine. What I'm interested in is: What did Hamblin's letter say? What did he tell Watson in order to get him to revise his original, very official-sounding statement? Regardless, the bottom line is that this episode demonstrates the power that apologists wield in terms of determining doctrine.

[_cksalmon]

[Guest]

As much as the mopologists try and dismiss this, when printed out, folded into a paper airplane, it becomes a stealth bomber when viewed at the wrong time by a wandering member who finds themselves at the trailhead of doubt.

I have used this very letter many times on unwitting members who dare refute my points about Book of Mormon geography. Only once in the past three years have I encountered the typical mo'pologetic excuses. All others are just shocked. It is an amazing thing to see logic smack people in the head.

At its worst it only presents one point, either these are not men of god, or the Book of Mormon has been proven false by lack of evidence around the hill Cumorah in NY.

At its best, both points are realized. that's when I unroll the rediscovered Joseph Smith Papyrus. Most members have no idea that the papyrus was not lost to the Chicago fire.

I would like to thank all involved with this official letter!

[_Trevor]

When imagination is completely severed from any mooring in evidence but blended with weirdly obsessive hostility and a zest for conspiratorial fantasies, the sky's the limit.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, your list lacks pertinence or the least shred of plausibility. Scratch's suggestion at the very least has a smidgen of both.

Classic diversion. Classic Peterson.

[_guy sajer]

I would be willing to bet that he demanded a retraction printed on Church letterhead. "The antis will win unless you act now!" he might have said.

He might also have said "I know where your children go to school, their bus routes, and their pick-up times."

Or he might have said, "I'll reveal our secret love affair if you don't pony up the statement that I demand."

Or, alternatively, he might have said "I'll put a spell on you."

Or, conceivably, he might have said, "We are the knights who say Ni" and demanded a shrubbery.

When imagination is completely severed from any mooring in evidence but blended with weirdly obsessive hostility and a zest for conspiratorial fantasies, the sky's the limit.

With due respect, Dr. P., this is hardly stuff of conspiratorial fantasy. Scratch poses a legitimate question and presents a narrative that provides a plausible basis for the question.

If, in fact, Watson did write the second letter, then it is legitimate to ask why the Brethren switched gears and reversed their previous rather definitive declaration. And I doubt it is because Moroni suddenly decided to make a visit to Gordo to set him straight on the matter.

Your dismissal of Scratch's evidence (and by implication your steadfast dedication to solid evidence) rather contradicts your "trust me, no really trust me" "evidence" that the second Watson letter even exists in the first place.

If the Brethren have indeed backed off their position that the Hill Cumorah is in New York State, it is yet one more example of how doctrine (or common teachings and beliefs) must ultimately give way to evidence, an area in which revealed religion has a rather, shall we say, less than exemplary record.

[_cksalmon]

See the title page of the New Book of Mormon.

Oh, I know, it's not "doctrinal." But, apologetics has most certainly influenced LDS claims.

"Among the ancestors."

This seems clearly to be an apologetic-derived concession.

Or, can one imagine that the official LDS scripture publishers independently came to the conclusion: "Wait, you know Book of Mormon doesn't actually tell us that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the Native Americans; a closer reading actually confirms that they are merely, and in a non-specific manner, among the ancestors. The scriptures are telling us this; this change has nothing to do with negative evidence?"

"Oh, that's what our apologists have been saying for a long time, too? Cool."

I'm sure this won't be the last concession derived from the apologetic milieu.

Chris

[_Daniel Peterson]

There was never an official "doctrine" that the last Nephite battle occurred in upstate New York.

There was, for obvious reasons, a widespread commonsense assumption that it did.

When examined, that assumption is found to rest upon less than compelling grounds. (It finds no support, for example, in the text of the Book of Mormon.)

A major contribution in any field of scholarship is when commonsense assumptions are revised or when the evidence leads them to be abandoned.

The sun doesn't actually rise and set, diseases are often caused by essentially invisible little creatures, the earth is not flat, the MIddle Ages were not a time of cultural and intellectual stagnation, maggots don't appear via spontaneous generation, time is not abolute, government management of the economy doesn't actually lead to more rational allocation of resources, matter is not solid, Sanskrit and Scots Gaelic are related, light is both particle and wave, etc.

I'm perfectly happy if and to the extent that LDS scholarship is leading us to be more careful and precise in our claims and in distinguishing between what we know and what we don't know. That's exactly what it should do. But there is no basis to any suppositon that Bill Hamblin somehow compelled Michael Watson to retract the statement in his first letter, or that the Maxwell Institute has some sort of leverage over the First Presidency.

[_The Dude]

There was never an official "doctrine" that the last Nephite battle occurred in upstate New York.

Whatever "doctrine" means... good that you also put it in quotations since all sides agree the notion of doctrine is a matter of bs and convenience.

There was, for obvious reasons, a widespread commonsense assumption that it did.

Why would it be commonsense? ...? Could it be that a plain reading of the Book of Mormon + Joseph Smith's remarks enforces, or at least leans heavily towards, the idea that there was only one hill in NY? If not that, then what exactly makes it commonsense?

I know. Parsimony.

When examined, that assumption is found to rest upon less than compelling grounds. (It finds no support, for example, in the text of the Book of Mormon.)

What evidence supports the new idea of two Hills? The One Hill theory at least has tradition and commonsense and parsimony going for it. That sets the bar pretty high for the Two Hill theory.

A major contribution in any field of scholarship is when commonsense assumptions are revised or when the evidence leads them to be abandoned.

So you're saying there's also a lot of evidence leading that leads one to abandon the tradition and common sense, and parsimony, of One Hill. Such as?

<snip diversion>

I'm perfectly happy if and to the extent that LDS scholarship is leading us to be more careful and precise in our claims and in distinguishing between what we know and what we don't know. That's exactly what it should do.

Yes! What we know and what we don't know. So lets talk about the Plan of Salvation, or maybe humans turning into gods -- maybe we can agree on something we don't know.

But there is no basis to any suppositon that Bill Hamblin somehow compelled Michael Watson to retract the statement in his first letter, or that the Maxwell Institute has some sort of leverage over the First Presidency.

oh. yawn. Who knows, really?

[_moksha]

What about the possibility that the apologists may help bring the Church more into mainstream Christian
thought or at the very least stem the tide of John Bircher thought working its way into LDS doctrine?

Would these not be some very positive side effects from apologetics?