Peterson Misleading Again

[_Daniel Peterson]

What point were the Tanners trying to make? Truth, honesty, or just facts?

They were trying to bolster their position by citing Watson letter #1, just as Professor Hamblin sought to bolster his position by citing Watson letter #2.

While you make every effort to characterize the letter as something else, the Letter was from the Office of the First Presidency to Brooks as instructed

I've never for a single moment denied that the first letter was from the Office of the First Presidency to Bishop Brooks.

Analogously, the second letter was from the Office of the First Presidency to Professor Hamblin.

and stated the "longstanding position OF THE CHURCH".

I don't deny that Watson letter #1 said precisely that.

It was that statement that concerned several of us and that led Professor Hamblin to write to the Office of the First Presidency. Watson letter #2 was written in response to Professor Hamblin's letter.

While your and the self serving interests of FARMS need it to be re- characterized as something else,

And what, exactly, are we attempting to "re-characterize" it as?

there is no indication that it was a personal opinion, just the opposite.

It's very like the second letter, sent by Brother Watson to Professor Hamblin, in that regard.

It is also supported by, as it clearly stated, the statements of past leaders and general authorities of the church.

Plainly, the notion that the final Nephite battles were fought on or near the hill in New York has been widely held, for many, many years, by the leaders and the general membership of the Church.

Nobody denies this. Nobody denies this. Nobody denies this.

I do not deny it. I do not deny it. I do not deny it.

The question is whether the Church has an official position on the matter. It does not appear to have one. If it has one, you'll be able to find a statement of the First Presidency to that effect, or something of similar status, communicated to the general membership of the Church via an official channel.

The letter from the First Presidency to Brooks makes it very clear what this "longstanding" postion has been. IF such position becomes troubling for those apologists who want Book of Mormon geography to be as fluid as jello, take it up with the First Presidency. But just don't continue your deceiving ways in trying to speak on behalf of the First Presidency, you have no basis and diminishing credibility.

We make no pretense of speaking for the First Presidency. We simply quote F. Michael Watson, the secretary to the First Presidency. Do you believe that it's wrong or illegitimate to cite a letter from F. Michael Watson in support of one's position?

(I suggest a careful search through James R. Clark's multivolume Messages of the First Presidency as a good place to start.)

Why? He, just like FARMS, can not speak officially on behalf of the Office of the First Presidency on this issue. His opinions, perhaps just as yours, may differ from the position held in the Office of the First Presidency with respect to the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah and the site in NY being one in the same. What is your point!!!!!!?

Am I on Candid Camera?

James R. Clark's Messages of the First Presidency is an anthology of official First Presidency statements, from the nineteenth century on down. Not letters from secretaries to bishops somewhere, not Professor Clark's ruminations on this and that, but official First Presidency statements.

Anyway, will you ever provide evidence that the Office of the First Presidency has formally changed their position as to the location of Hill Cumorah, as mentioned in the Book of Mormon, being in NY?

You open with a letter written by a secretary in the Office of the First Presidency. I counter with a letter written by the very same secretary in the Office of the First Presidency.

I confess that I simply cannot fathom how Watson letter #1 represents an official statement of the First Presidency and decisive evidence, while Watson letter #2 is apparently nothing at all and has absolutely zero value as evidence. Can you please explain your reasoning?

[_Trevor]

I assume that you're a reasonably decent fellow and a competent scholar in real life. These boards -- and, in my view, this one far more than many -- are poisonous.

I can assure you that my questions do not result from the "poisonous" atmosphere of this board. They come from my training and the experience I have dealing with similar textual problems, like the purported writings of Numa, which surfaced in the second century BCE in Rome.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I can assure you that my questions do not result from the "poisonous" atmosphere of this board. They come from my training and the experience I have dealing with similar textual problems, like the purported writings of Numa, which surfaced in the second century BCE in Rome.

Sigh.

I didn't say that they did.

Forget it.

We can't communicate. I'm not interested. It would plainly be a waste of time for both of us.

[_Yong Xi]

Vintage DCP. At least you're predictable.

Well, seriously. Really.

What is there of real interest here? Defending my integrity? It does no good.

Much of what I get here is personal attacks. They're not interesting.

Sigh..

[_Daniel Peterson]

Sigh..

I couldn't agree more.

Sigh.

[_Trevor]

Sigh.

I didn't say that they did.

Forget it.

We can't communicate. I'm not interested. It would plainly be a waste of time for both of us.

Yeah, talk about sigh. I was trying to assure you that my questions would not be driven by the "poisonous" atmosphere here. Now I get your conclusion that you are not interested and it would be nothing but a waste of time? Is that as good as we can do here?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Is that as good as we can do here?

It's probably as good as we can do here.

More and more, I see this place as the natural habitat of posters like Scratch and antishock8.

[_Trevor]

More and more, I see this place as the natural habitat of posters like Scratch and antishock8.

Well, I for one am not content with that characterization of the entire board. If the board tilts too far in this direction, then I would hope something short of heavy-handed moderation can be done about it. I have seen a number of worthwhile posts here, and I think that much that gets dismissed out of hand ought not to be dismissed. It seems to me that the problem is as much the refusal of many of the apologists to participate here as it is a failure of the board. Similar things happened at ZLMB. I find the whole thing unfortunate, and I am frustrated that essentially much of the traffic on both MA&D and MDB gets reduced to the silly banter of two almost completely sequestered cheering sections.

[_Mister Scratch]

Is that as good as we can do here?

It's probably as good as we can do here.

More and more, I see this place as the natural habitat of posters like Scratch and antishock8.

Hey, I was more than happy to post on the Board Formerly Known as FAIR until you saw fit to get me booted off.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It seems to me that the problem is as much the refusal of many of the apologists to participate here as it is a failure of the board.

Can you honestly think of any particular reason why they should want to participate here?

And isn't it precisely a failure of the board that "apologists," to the extent that they think of it, tend to loathe it? It's an uncongenial place -- and I mean a profoundly uncongenial place -- for anybody who affirms Mormonism. My personal experience of MDB, by a considerable distance, is as a hate site. And, in my case, the hatred and hostility are pretty personally focused. The ratio of (often astoundingly spiteful) noise to signal is far, far too high for me, at least, to be able to recommend it to anybody else. In fact, I would recommend that anybody I know and like avoid the place. And that's exactly what I've recommended on the two or three occasions when people have asked.

Similar things happened at ZLMB. I find the whole thing unfortunate, and I am frustrated that essentially much of the traffic on both MA&D and MDB gets reduced to the silly banter of two almost completely sequestered cheering sections.

I think it's unfortunate, too.

However, to be strictly accurate, there isn't much of a pro-Mormon "cheering section" here.