Dr. Peterson, why do you think the Church chose to omit ...

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Can there be any fault given to changing directions in the quest to seek the truth?

I guess the "quest" is the issue. On the one hand, we have Joseph Smith's being tutored by the last Nephite (now angel) about Nephite history, people and culture (according to Lucy Smith's bio), while, on the other hand, we have apologists desperately trying to reconcile the heretofore accepted hemispheric model with the scientific record. The former based on divine tutelage, the latter based on man-made learning and logic. It appears the Church has chosen to go with the latter.

[_The Nehor]

I think this Chapter 38 shows that the LGT is here to stay. Poor Joseph. I wonder if he would even recognize the Church anymore.

I'll ask him next time we talk.

[_moksha]

I'll ask him next time we talk.

Make sure you show him a picture of how the new City Creek Mall is coming along. Oh, and mention how this years Brigham Young University football team is doing too.

[_The Nehor]

I'll ask him next time we talk.

Make sure you show him a picture of how the new City Creek Mall is coming along. Oh, and mention how this years Brigham Young University football team is doing too.

I'm not sure he cares about either but sure.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Make sure you show him a picture of how the new City Creek Mall is coming along. Oh, and mention how this years Brigham Young University football team is doing too.

I'm not sure he cares about either but sure.

Probably not, but you may want to surprise him with a Playboy magazine. I'm sure he'll be pleased with the progress made on the female body.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Can there be any fault given to changing directions in the quest to seek the truth?

I guess the "quest" is the issue. On the one hand, we have Joseph Smith's being tutored by the last Nephite (now angel) about Nephite history, people and culture (according to Lucy Smith's bio), while, on the other hand, we have apologists desperately trying to reconcile the heretofore accepted hemispheric model with the scientific record. The former based on divine tutelage, the latter based on man-made learning and logic. It appears the Church has chosen to go with the latter.

The desperately was a nice touch.

[_cksalmon]

The desperately was a nice touch.

What about the main issue (as I framed it, at least):

In response to Harmony's objection that the writers didn't state that they truncated the Wentworth Letter.

Ditto. Especially in light of the fact that they included this statement by the founding LDS prophet Joseph Smith: "As Mr. Bastow has taken the proper steps to obtain correct information, all that I shall ask at his hands, is, that he publish the account entire, ungarnished, and without misrepresentation."

Why would the lesson's author(s) include a statement by Joseph Smith explicitly calling for Bastow to "publish the account entire" and then, themselves, not "publish the account entire"? And, in fact, intentionally omit a very controversial section found in the "account entire" that Joseph Smith explicitly desired to have published?

The answers I've heard from LDS are that the omission was due to space considerations or that the omitted section was not important to the lesson or, more generically, one just can't include everything in these types of manuals. Bah.

There need be no conspiracy theory near to hand to see clearly that the editorial deletion was strategic.

I'd suppose that the manual was written and published for LDS folks assumed to be uninterested in doing the necessary legwork to track down the complete text of the Wentworth Letter. Why would they even think they might need to do so? After all, the Wentworth Letter*, as published in the manual, follows the statement by prophet Joseph Smith that he wished the letter to be published in its entirety.

It seems a transparently shady tactic.

"...[A]ll that I shall ask at his hands, is, that he publish the account entire, ungarnished, and without misrepresentation."

Indeed.

------------------------
*i.e., an incomplete version of the Wentworth Letter.

What's your take on that issue? I would guess that you'll respond that you have no inside knowledge of the motivations of the writers and thus can't comment. But, I'm wondering what you believe personally to have motivated the deletion. You must have some sort of opinion on the matter, it stands to reason, whether it is correct or not.

Will you disclose it?

cks

[_mms]

I asked a couple of times, but it seemed he did not care to offer it up. Really interested to know what he truly thinks was the motivation.

[_solomarineris]

You are welcome to live a lie, check this one out.....

911 BYU Talk Revised and edited.........
Date: Sep 11 15:14
Author: Battle-ax
Back on September 11, 2001, which was on a Tuesday and is when BYU has their normal devotional scheduled. But because of the events of the day it was quickly changed to a memorial service for the 911 victims. It had to be the first large gathering of individuals to morn the loss of life that day while the event was still unfolding. The Marriott center was packed with over 23000 people all looking to be comforted and looking for a place to express their grief. I was on the floor of the Marriott center when President Merrill Bateman gave the main talk.

What I remember was being shocked at the tone of his talk. He did express his grief and prayers for the people lost but then started into a rant of this being the last days and we should expect this. Then he started to chew people out for not filling up the Marriott center on other devotional and why it is only filled today. I was shocked and hurt as I looked around and all people were looking for was comfort and understanding and they were getting their asses chewed out and being made to feel guilty. I remember coming home and telling my wife what a ass he was in his talk.

So two days ago I decided to try and look up the talk and watch it again. After a little searching on Google I found the talk on the BYU web site. To my surprise there was no video or audio files of the talk like all the other talks on the web site, only a printed version. Now this was one of the most important events in the history of our country and there was no video archive of it but other talks had both video and audio versions. So I downloaded the text and was shocked when I read it. The talk was heavily edited and all the crap was taken out and only about a five minute talk with a bunch of Jesus crap and you hold the key to peace in the world. I wish I could get a copy of the original talk to compare, does anyone know where I might get one. Just another example of revising history that maybe true but not useful.

I shed no tears a few years ago when Bateman had his ass fired from BYU for mismanagement and I think he was just retired from the 70's, fired again. I guess his dream of climbing the ladder to the top is over and I hope he ends up in some God awful visitor center answering dumb ass questions. Let me know if anyone finds the original talk.

You guys are dupes, who would have no real chance to survive in real world, I'm talking about
LSD Brass & their minions a.k.a. yours truly.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I have no insider knowledge of the motivations of the writers and editors and, thus, can't comment with any authority.

That said, I've also noted that the Joseph Smith manual is an anthology of quotations, not an anthology of entire texts, so I'm not surprised or offended by finding only a partially quoted text in it.

I haven't looked at the manual regarding this matter, so don't know why the statement about Mr. Bastow was included, as it apparently was.

Had I been involved in compiling the anthology of quotations, I probably would have omitted the portion about geography because I don't believe that Joseph claimed revealed knowledge of Book of Mormon geography and because I believe, in light of that, that citing a geographical speculation of his in a Church manual would carry more weight than it ought to carry, and would distort contemporary discussion of Book of Mormon geography. (I understand that some here will immediately accuse me of seeking to suppress evidence that conflicts with my preferred view of the geography of the Book of Mormon, but that is not the case: I would insist on the statement being included in any discussion of the subject -- which the Joseph Smith manual is not -- and have no desire whatever to see the statement "suppressed." I'm forlornly certain that my position on this will be pounced on and distorted, but there it is.)

There need be no conspiracy theory near to hand to see clearly that the editorial deletion was strategic.

I think that's likely.

It seems a transparently shady tactic.

Having served for nearly a decade, some time back, on one of the Church curriculum-writing committees, I would have to say that I never encountered a case of deliberate deception or cynical distortion among my fellow committee members. Perhaps the moral character of the people asked to serve on such committees has declined since I was released.