To What Extent Do Apologists Influence Doctrine?

[_Dr. Shades]

I just noticed something about that letter.

Notice the order:

Ronnie Sparks, a rank-and-file member, writes a letter to the First Presidency with a question.

The First Presidency responds to Darrell L. Brooks, Ronnie Sparks' bishop, and not Ronnie Sparks himself.

Why the Hell didn't the First Presidency just "skip the middleman" and respond to Ronnie Sparks directly?

[_Chap]

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.

Wait a minute. The interpretation of the Book of Mormon as describing events in North America is only based on common sense? It is based on the testimony of an angel - in fact more than one angel. As the prophet Joseph Smith assures us in the Wentworth letter:

On the evening on the 21st of September, A.D. 1823, while I was praying unto God, and endeavoring to exercise faith in the precious promises of Scripture, on a sudden a light like that of day, only of a far purer and more glorious appearance and brightness, burst into the room, indeed the first sight was as though the house was filled with consuming fire; the appearance produced a shock that affected the whole body; in a moment a personage stood before me surrounded with a glory yet greater than that with which I was already surrounded. This messenger proclaimed himself to be an angel of God, sent to bring the joyful tidings that the covenant which God made with ancient Israel was at hand to be fulfilled, that the preparatory work for the second coming of the Messiah was speedily to commence; that the time was at hand for the Gospel in all its fullness to be preached in power, unto all nations that a people might be prepared for the Millennial reign. I was informed that I was chosen to be an instrument in the hands of God to bring about some of His purposes in this glorious dispensation.

I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was made known unto me; I was also told where were deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgment of the records of the ancient Prophets that had existed on this continent. The angel appeared to me three times the same night and unfolded the same things. After having received many visits from the angels of God unfolding the majesty and glory of the events that should transpire in the last days, on the morning of the 22nd of September, A.D. 1827, the angel of the Lord delivered the records into my hands.

These records were engraven on plates which had the appearance of gold, each plate was six inches wide and eight inches long, and not quite so thick as common tin. They were filled with engravings, in Egyptian characters, and bound together in a volume as the leaves of a book, with three rings running through the whole. The volume was something near six inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed. The characters on the unsealed part were small, and beautifully engraved. The whole book exhibited many marks of antiquity in its construction, and much skill in the art of engraving. With the records was found a curious instrument, which the ancients called "Urim and Thummim," which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rims of a bow fastened to a breast plate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God.

In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites, and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country. This book also tells us that our Savior made His appearance unto this continent after His resurrection; that He planted the Gospel here in all its fulness, and richness, and power, and blessing; that they had Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers, and Evangelists; the same order, the same priesthood, the same ordinances, gifts, powers, and blessings, as were enjoyed on the eastern continent, that the people were cut off in consequence of their transgressions, that the last of their prophets who existed among them was commanded to write an abridgment of their prophecies, history, &c, and to hide it up in the earth, and that it should come forth and be united with the Bible for the accomplishment of the purposes of God in the last days. For a more particular account I would refer to the Book of Mormon, which can be purchased at Nauvoo, or from any of our Traveling Elders.

See http://www.lightplanet.com/Mormons/peop ... etter.html

Now when an early 19th century New Englander says "this country ... this continent ... America ...America ... this country ... this continent ...here", are we to understand that he did not mean the territory of the United States? Remember this is not just a man interpreting a book by his own lights, but a man who has been told by angels what that book is about.

Of course, a living apologist can always Trump a dead prophet. He can even Trump a resurrected angelic being, no doubt. Critics have no hope in the face of such awesome intellectual power.

[_ludwigm]

I just noticed something about that letter.
Notice the order:
Ronnie Sparks, a rank-and-file member, writes a letter to the First Presidency with a question.
The First Presidency responds to Darrell L. Brooks, Ronnie Sparks' bishop, and not Ronnie Sparks himself.

Why the Hell didn't the First Presidency just "skip the middleman" and respond to Ronnie Sparks directly?

This is the official way.
The true order of things (c) Packer.

You may believe me, I used to serve in the army 39 years.

[_truth dancer]

I just noticed something about that letter.

Notice the order:

Ronnie Sparks, a rank-and-file member, writes a letter to the First Presidency with a question.

The First Presidency responds to Darrell L. Brooks, Ronnie Sparks' bishop, and not Ronnie Sparks himself.

Why the Hell didn't the First Presidency just "skip the middleman" and respond to Ronnie Sparks directly?

The FP and GAs do not want letters written to them. If member have questions they are to go to their bishops. I have heard of many examples of people writing to the Brethren with questions, only to have their letters forwarded to their Bishops. It has made for some serious awkwardness for those who are not aware of this practice.

Personally, I think it is SERIOUS breach of confidentiality not to mention decency. Here you have members with difficult questions who are reaching out asking for help, who often do not want their local leaders to know of their concerns, and the brethren have no hesitation in giving a personal letter to someone else. :-( I don't know how this is justified.

If LDS leaders don't want to answer personal letters from the regular run of the mill members, they should just return the letter with a form letter telling the member they do not answer personal letters and to bring their questions to their bishops. This practice of sharing personal information is REALLY a breach of confidence.

In addition, I find it strange that, if Watson made an about face, he didn't write a second letter to Bishop Brooks to restate the LDS church position.

~dancer~

[_harmony]

In addition, I find it strange that, if Watson made an about face, he didn't write a second letter to Bishop Brooks to restate the LDS church position.

~dancer~

This is exactly what I don't understand about the whole situation. Why wasn't Bro Watson consistent? Why did he reply directly to Bro Hamblin for the 2nd question but not directly to Bro Starks for the first one? It also makes me suspicious that there never was a 2nd letter from Bro Watson. It might have been a 1st letter from Bro Hamblin. And since Bro Hamblin conveniently cannot produce the so-called 2nd letter, there would appear to be a breach in his credibility on this matter. For all we know, the 2nd letter doesn't exist and never did.

[_Mercury]

Two Words: Primary and Among

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Regardless, the bottom line is that this episode demonstrates the power that apologists wield in terms of determining doctrine.

I think you're right about this. One example: it was Noel Reynolds, a BYU prof and longtime FARMS participant, who wrote the piece a few years ago about the Book of Mormon's not ruling out "others," among other issues, which the Brethren picked up and posted on the official Church website (with several references to FARMS/apologist writings). I think with many points of controversial "doctrine" these days, the apologists are 'driving the bus,' as it were.

[_Chap]

Two Words: Primary and Among

Could you maybe give us a sentence or two to fit those words into, so your point will be clearer?

(We are not discussing Native American ancestry in this thread, so far as I know, if that is what you are pointing to.)

[_antishock8]

Still waiting on someone to produce the second letter...

My guess is I would be waiting forever, since it doesn't exist. Mr. Peterson is a liar. Mr. Hamblin is a liar. Put up or shut up.

[_Mercury]

Two Words: Primary and Among

Could you maybe give us a sentence or two to fit those words into, so your point will be clearer?

(We are not discussing Native American ancestry in this thread, so far as I know, if that is what you are pointing to.)

(sigh....)

Church "doctrine" has been for years, until recently, that all native americans are ancestors of the imaginary people in the Book of Mormon. Apologists created the theory that they were an isolated people. I cannot see how we are not discussing native american ancestry when discussing doctrinal changes influenced by apologists. Sentiments such as those counter to every "prophet" besides monson have been invalidated by the church and Doubleday.