What Watson (supposedly) really said to Hamblin/FARMS

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well what else did the 1993 communication provide FARMS?

It plainly acknowledged the existence of varying opinions on the subject within the Church and implicitly granted the legitimacy of that variety.

Which means that the topic is open for research and discussion. Which is what FARMS does.

I don't know if Watson is authorized to retract a statement from the church. I think that's why he did not.

It's a source of on-going wonder and amusement to me that you can, with a straight face, declare Michael Watson's letter to Brother Brooks "a statement from the Church" while dismissing Michael Watson's letter to Brother Hamblin as of no value or significance.

Since we don't believe that the Church has adopted........

Who is "we"?

We are the folks connected with the Maxwell Institute (a.k.a., more or less, FARMS).

Speak for yourself and not those who you have no authority to represent!

I don't believe that I need any particular authority in order to characterize the views that my friends and I hold.

Daniel, ignorance is bliss, but you are taking it to a new level.

Pointless belligerence is silly, and your level, though not as high as, say, poor antishock8's, is noticeable.

Can't you disagree without being unpleasant?

Denial is worse however.

I couldn't agree more.

So you should stop ignoring this:

Is it the official doctrine of the Church? Plainly, no. If it were, the Church wouldn't be permitting its official magazine to publish articles teaching otherwise, wouldn't be permitting its wholly-owned publishing house to print and distribute books arguing otherwise, wouldn't be permitting professors at its wholly-owned university to teach and write otherwise, wouldn't be permitting an institute at its wholly-owned university to support speeches and produce films and publish periodicals advocating otherwise, and wouldn't have authorized the naming of that institute after one of its most beloved recent leaders. And furthermore, if it were, there would be better and more authoritative evidence for it than occasional passing references to an assumed New York Cumorah in scattered speeches and a secretary's letter to an obscure bishop.

It's obvious beyond reasonable dispute that the Church would not permit its official magazine to publish an article denying the existence of God, the deity or atonement or resurrection of Christ, the prophethood of Joseph Smith, the need for priesthood ordinances, the necessity of temples, the importance of chastity, the authentic antiquity of the Book of Mormon, or any number of other plainly official Church teachings. Its publishing house wouldn't be allowed to print and distribute books arguing against those doctrines, nor would professors at its university campus be permitted to continue their employment while teaching and writing against them, nor would it stand idly by while an institute on one of those campuses campaigned against them, nor would it give the name of a beloved recent leader to such an institute.

Please don't try to put words in the statements from the Office of the First Presidency.

I haven't, of course. Have you?

Unlike you, most of us can read and comprehend simple english [sic].

I hope that you're not such an unpleasant person in your face-to-face interactions in daily life.

We do not need FARMS to interpret!

Have you taken your lithium today?

I wonder how many prophets have to be wrong and for how long before some people will start to question the prophetic ability of the leadership of the LDS church?

That's like asking: "How long does FARMS have to be ignored before people outside of Provo start to pay attention to it?"

No it's not. You're really, really stretching in order to get in your silly little meme about FARMS receiving attention only in Provo. Which, by the way, isn't true anyhow.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Dan, you know the original letter wasn't forged

Of course I do.

but you choose to grab for any straw or fog the discussion by introducing the Tanners and suggesting the forgery, yet then elsewhere feign dismay over how you are treated on various message boards.

You apparently haven't been following the discussion here. Harmony and others (today and at various points over the past several years) have indeed suggested that the letter is a forgery, or that we've substantially distorted its contents for partisan ideological advantage.

I'm not making this up. And it's not a figment of my martyr-fixated imagination.

You also know that you are bright, and have a decent command of the English language, and the verbal games may be fun or sport for some, but there are people out there truly looking for answers to problems from being born into "the only true and living church" on the earth. If you think you are helping anyone stay in the church, you are just fooling yourself. That you cannot see the martyr complex you have in most of your postings is sad.

I'm moved by your sorrow.

Part of the reason that I think what I and others do -- which is far and away not limited to insignificant postings on an obscure message board! -- helps some people stay in the Church and/or find faith in the Church is that people write to me and call me and come up to me and tell me so. They've been doing it for years. Maybe they're just having me on, of course. But even message board interactions can occasionally do some good: One of the principal figures at the annual FAIR conference joined the Church a few years ago and credited discussions with me and a few others on the old ZLMB board as having helped with the decision to join.

I'm sorry that you have such a low opinion of me and what I do, but I can assure you that, within my psychological, mental, and educational limitations, I'm making a serious effort to defend and build the Kingdom. I do it in numerous public speeches, articles, books, films, interviews, and the like. Message board exchanges are, at best, of minimal significance.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Unless history takes place in a vacuum, I think it is fair to say that the Church *has* claimed a "revealed" Book of Mormon geography.

I've seen none.

Anyways, here is a kind of side question (and please forgive my ignorance!): What is the current apologetic explanation for how the Golden Plates turned up in New York?

John Sorenson discusses this question early on in his Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. You'll easily be able to find it in your copy of the book.

[_antishock8]

Well what else did the 1993 communication provide FARMS?

It plainly acknowledged the existence of varying opinions on the subject within the Church and implicitly granted the legitimacy of that variety.

It's not opinion asshole. It's Mormon prophecy. When a prophet or apostle prophetically makes a statement then it's not just opinion... It's god-approved truth.

The only reason why you take this position is because it's quite clear no epic battle took place at the NY site. Once again, the con man is hard at work conning and deceiving. Way to go, Dan. You just earned your pay for the day. *winks and nudges* Good job at keepin' those critics off the flanks...

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's not opinion asshole. It's Mormon prophecy. When a prophet or apostle prophetically makes a statement then it's not just opinion... It's god-approved truth.

I agree. Except for your use of the vocative.

And if you can find me a prophet or apostle declaring a revelation on Book of Mormon geography, I'll accept it.

The only reason why you take this position is because it's quite clear no epic battle took place at the NY site.

That's not actually true. The reasons for my taking the position that I do are nicely set forth in David Palmer's In Search of Cumorah and John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon.

Once again, the con man is hard at work conning and deceiving. Way to go, Dan. You just earned your pay for the day. *winks and nudges* Good job at keepin' those critics off the flanks...

Actually, it's been a pretty unproductive day. Too much time spent here.

But I just received the introduction and final two books of Ibn Sina's Physics from the translator, so I can begin proofreading those, and I've nailed down some more aspects of an academic conference that I'm planning for November 2009 in Kuwait City. Plus, I finalized the sale of my son's condominium and took care of some welfare issues for some members of my ward. So the day wasn't an entire loss.

[_Joey]

It plainly acknowledged the existence of varying opinions on the subject within the Church and implicitly granted the legitimacy of that variety.

Please cite the particular phrase "within the Church" in the 1993 correspondence from Watson. Is there a distinction between what members views and that of the Church?

It's a source of on-going wonder and amusement to me that you can, with a straight face, declare Michael Watson's letter to Brother Brooks "a statement from the Church" while dismissing Michael Watson's letter to Brother Hamblin as of no value or significance.

Easy. And it is telling of your lack of ability to read. The 1990 letter from the Office of the First Presidency clearly states ""the CHURCH has long maintained". Where in this supposed 1993 correspondence does it refer to "the CHURCH"?

We are the folks connected with the Maxwell Institute (a.k.a., more or less, FARMS).

And that "we" cannot officially speak on behalf of the "Church".

Can't you disagree without being unpleasant?

You don't really want to take a poll on those who find you un-pleasant now, do you?

Is it the official doctrine of the Church? Plainly, no. If it were, the Church wouldn't be permitting its official magazine to publish articles teaching otherwise, wouldn't be permitting its wholly-owned publishing house to print and distribute books arguing otherwise, wouldn't be permitting professors at its wholly-owned university to teach and write otherwise, wouldn't be permitting an institute at its wholly-owned university to support speeches and produce films and publish periodicals advocating otherwise, and wouldn't have authorized the naming of that institute after one of its most beloved recent leaders. And furthermore, if it were, there would be better and more authoritative evidence for it than occasional passing references to an assumed New York Cumorah in scattered speeches and a secretary's letter to an obscure bishop.

Again, thank you for your personal opinion which does not speak for the Office of the First Presidency.

I haven't, of course. Have you?

You have, and most here know it. All I have done is provide statements from the Office of the First Presidency.


While I simply don't have the free time as you to spend life on message boards, the most telling tale of how much my points are a clear focus of the deception you try and make with Watson and what the Church has stated w respect to one Hill Cumorah, is the amount of time you spend trying to dig you and Hamblin out of hole here.

But I suppose if I needed such loyalty for financial and economic incentives, I'd probably have several thousand posts a year on these boards as well.

[_Joey]

Actually, it's been a pretty unproductive day. Too much time spent here.

And if you had more pressing things on your plate, one has to wonder how you prioritize!!! Please, most know what your mission is!

[_Daniel Peterson]

It plainly acknowledged the existence of varying opinions on the subject within the Church and implicitly granted the legitimacy of that variety.

Please cite the particular phrase "within the Church" in the 1993 correspondence from Watson.

It occurred to me that his reference to "some Latter-day Saints" might have had in mind people who were "within the Church." I take it that you disagree?

Is there a distinction between what members views and that of the Church?

Sure. There's a distinction between widespread views and official doctrines. They may be the same or they may not.

Easy. And it is telling of your lack of ability to read.

Charming as ever!

The 1990 letter from the Office of the First Presidency clearly states ""the CHURCH has long maintained". Where in this supposed 1993 correspondence does it refer to "the CHURCH"?

I'm a completely incompetent reader, as you charitably observe, but I think there's a reference to "the Church" in the sentence "The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography."

We are the folks connected with the Maxwell Institute (a.k.a., more or less, FARMS).

And that "we" cannot officially speak on behalf of the "Church".

Where did I claim to speak for "the Church"?

Can't you disagree without being unpleasant?

You don't really want to take a poll on those who find you un-pleasant now, do you?

I wouldn't mind it a bit. I would expect you to do your polling among a representative sample of the population, of course. Not only on this message board or on the internet, but also among my neighbors, my students, my colleagues, the members of the ward over which I preside, my extended family, academics from other universities who have interacted with me, and the like. Your results could be quite interesting. I encourage you to do it.

Is it the official doctrine of the Church? Plainly, no. If it were, the Church wouldn't be permitting its official magazine to publish articles teaching otherwise, wouldn't be permitting its wholly-owned publishing house to print and distribute books arguing otherwise, wouldn't be permitting professors at its wholly-owned university to teach and write otherwise, wouldn't be permitting an institute at its wholly-owned university to support speeches and produce films and publish periodicals advocating otherwise, and wouldn't have authorized the naming of that institute after one of its most beloved recent leaders. And furthermore, if it were, there would be better and more authoritative evidence for it than occasional passing references to an assumed New York Cumorah in scattered speeches and a secretary's letter to an obscure bishop.

Again, thank you for your personal opinion which does not speak for the Office of the First Presidency.

What a completely bizarre total non-response.

the most telling tale of how much my points are a clear focus of the deception you try and make with Watson and what the Church has stated w respect to one Hill Cumorah

Incomprehensible, but the charm comes through once again even if no clear meaning does.

is the amount of time you spend trying to dig you and Hamblin out of hole here.

There's no hole. I've been curious to see whether I could extract a coherent argument from your various posts.

I can't.

But I suppose if I needed such loyalty for financial and economic incentives, I'd probably have several thousand posts a year on these boards as well.

Right. They pay me by the post.

And I get 150% hazardous duty pay when I lock horns with a titan such as yourself.

[_Joey]

I'm a completely incompetent reader, as you charitably observe, but I think there's a reference to "the Church" in the sentence "The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography."

Well actually, as others have said, you are completely predictable and gave the response I was attempting to lead you into.

So lets combine the two sentences from the 1990 statement from the Office of the First Presidency and your/Hamblin's supposed 1993 "correspondence", where it is the "Church's" statement of position:

"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 Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography."

So if Watson is not a lying with respect to the 1993 correspondence for which we have no proof of, then both statements are true and mutually exclusive. The short of it is that the Church maintains a position of one Hill Cumorah but to emphasize the doctrinal and historical values. It also demonstrates that Hamblin's article provides absolutely no support that the LDS Church does not maintain a position of one Hill Cumorah. If that means they have taken a position, directly or indirectly, on Book of Mormon geography, so be it. But FARMS, you or Hamblin can't spin your way around the facts. This 1993 correspondence had no impact on the 1990 statement from the Office of the First Presidency. Accordingly, excluding its content from the article Hamblin wrote for FARMS is extremely deceiving and lacking in both integrity and full disclosure.

[_Inconceivable]

It plainly acknowledged the existence of varying opinions on the subject within the Church and implicitly granted the legitimacy of that variety.

Short List of those sharing the IDENTICAL "OPINION":

Prophets, Seers and Revelators:

Joseph Smith Jr.
George Albert Smith

Special Witnesses, Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ:

Orson Pratt
Anthony W. Ivins
James E. Talmage
Marion G. Romney
Bruce R. McConkie
B.H. Roberts

Short List of those having a VARYING OPINION:

(People of no particular significance or Authority to Speak for the Mormon Church)

Inconceivable
Daniel C. Peterson (mindfreak)