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

[_cksalmon]

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

The question was not "Will you authoritatively comment on this issue?"

...

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.

Which is not an answer to the question I asked. You might state that you have no interest in answering the question. But, what you've posted above certainly doesn't constitute an answer.

Assuming, I assume rightly, that you know your own mind, the question is certainly not difficult. It's rather straightforward. If you just wish to refrain from answering the question, why not just say so?

I'd accept it.

cks

[_Runtu]

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

The question was not "Will you authoritatively comment on this issue?"

...

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.

Which is not an answer to the question I asked. You might state that you have no interest in answering the question. But, what you've posted above certainly doesn't constitute an answer.

Assuming, I assume rightly, that you know your own mind, the question is certainly not difficult. It's rather straightforward. If you just wish to refrain from answering the question, why not just say so?

I'd accept it.

cks

Having been involved in the production of church manuals, my guess is that, since the statement is no longer supported by the cognoscenti, either the committee chose to remove it, or the Correlation committee removed it. One imagines Joseph Smith was more confident in making bold pronouncement than are today's bureaucrats.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You are welcome to live a lie

Thanks!

check this one out.....

You want me to replace my own lie with a new one supplied by you?

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.

I don't remember the talk that way.

One thing that stood out in my mind, incidentally, was his call for members of the BYU community not to react in an intolerant way toward Arabs and people of the Islamic faith, and particularly not to those among our students. I thought that was a very wise thing to say.

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 s*** 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.

How wicked, bizarre, and intolerable that, on a day of shock and mourning, the General Authority president of BYU mentioned Jesus!

I shed no tears a few years ago when Bateman had his ass fired from BYU for mismanagement

He served for pretty much what has become the typical length of service as BYU President (in his case, 7.5 years). I never heard that he was "fired," nor that there was any "mismanagement" involved. (In my personal experience with him, which was considerable, I was perpetually amazed at his financial savvy and managerial sharpness.) He was released as president of BYU in 2003, and was almost immediately placed in the presidency of the Seventy. That doesn't seem to suggest a whole lot of displeasure with him on the part of Church leadership.

I think he was just retired from the 70's, fired again.

He served in the presidency of the Seventy until he was made an emeritus General Authority in 2007. There was no suggestion of any "firing."

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.

As soon as he was released from service as an active General Authority in 2007, he was called to serve as president of the Provo Temple. This doesn't seem to indicate that the leadership of the Church is irritated with him.

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.

Slowlymarinated, it would be impossible for me to tell you how seriously I take your opinions.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I responded to you in good faith, cks.

What's your problem?

[_cksalmon]

I responded to you in good faith, cks.

What's your problem?

That your response just wasn't a response to the question I asked? You know that, though.

It's not a personal problem. It's merely an inquiry.

That's all. And not, I'd suggest, an overly taxing one.

cks

[_mms]

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.

Bolding mine.

I linked to the Chapter, above. The lesson is entitled "The Wentworth Letter" and includes all of it, except what I quoted.

[_harmony]

You are welcome to live a lie

Thanks!

check this one out.....

You want me to replace my own lie with a new one supplied by you?

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.

I don't remember the talk that way.

One thing that stood out in my mind, incidentally, was his call for members of the BYU community not to react in an intolerant way toward Arabs and people of the Islamic faith, and particularly not to those among our students. I thought that was a very wise thing to say.

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 s*** 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.

How wicked, bizarre, and intolerable that, on a day of shock and mourning, the General Authority president of BYU mentioned Jesus!

I shed no tears a few years ago when Bateman had his ass fired from BYU for mismanagement

He served for pretty much what has become the typical length of service as BYU President (in his case, 7.5 years). I never heard that he was "fired," nor that there was any "mismanagement" involved. (In my personal experience with him, which was considerable, I was perpetually amazed at his financial savvy and managerial sharpness.) He was released as president of BYU in 2003, and was almost immediately placed in the presidency of the Seventy. That doesn't seem to suggest a whole lot of displeasure with him on the part of Church leadership.

I think he was just retired from the 70's, fired again.

He served in the presidency of the Seventy until he was made an emeritus General Authority in 2007. There was no suggestion of any "firing."

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.

As soon as he was released from service as an active General Authority in 2007, he was called to serve as president of the Provo Temple. This doesn't seem to indicate that the leadership of the Church is irritated with him.

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.

I think these 2 posts indicates exactly how oppositely two people could view the same set of facts. The viewpoints are diametrically opposed, yet they obviously saw the very same thing. No wonder eye witness testimony is so unreliable.

Slowlymarinated, it would be impossible for me to tell you how seriously I take your opinions.

No doubt there are those among us who didn't laugh... but I did. Slowlymarinated? ROTFL!

[_Daniel Peterson]

I responded to you in good faith, cks.

What's your problem?

That your response just wasn't a response to the question I asked? You know that, though.

It's not a personal problem. It's merely an inquiry.

That's all. And not, I'd suggest, an overly taxing one.

cks

I did answer your question.

Here's your earlier post, to which I replied:

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?

I did disclose it. I gave my opinion about what I believe personally to have motivated the deletion.

I responded point by point to what you wrote.

I'm genuinely puzzled by your reaction.

[_beastie]

Here’s an example:

Joe and Sue are married. Prior to their marriage, Sue had a tumultuous love affair with Bill. One day, a letter from Bill to Sue arrives in the mail. Joe sees the mail first, and hides the letter and doesn’t inform Sue about the letter.

Someone asks: “what was Joe’s motivation for hiding the letter?” You respond “I’ve known Joe for a long time, and have never known him to engage in an act of deliberate deception or cynical distortion”.

Ok, well, this tells us what you DON’T think his motivation was – to deceive or cynically distort – but it certainly doesn’t tell us what you DO think his motivation was.

Hope this wasn’t too “muddled” for you to figure out.

[_Chap]

Well, DCP did contribute this:

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.)

While this is phrased (in Beastie's terms) as an answer to the question "If you had been Joe, would you have hidden Bill's letter to Sue, and if so why?", it is not unreasonable to take it as expressing DCP's best guess as to why the statement was omitted by the relevant authorities. You know him well enough to realise that the likelihood of his openly speculating in the slightest degree about the actual motivations of those higher up the LDS chain of authority is very low.

As to whether "Joseph claimed revealed knowledge of Book of Mormon geography": well, he did tell us this 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.

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

Unless we are to assume that the angelic visitor scrupulously refrained, in the course of repeated visits during which he "unfolded the same things" , from saying what was meant by "this country" (which would have been a very odd omission), I can't see how a reasonable person can refrain from seeing this as a clear claim to have revealed knowledge of, in effect, "Book of Mormon geography". (Angels can, technically, 'reveal' things, can't they?)

But I probably lack the necessary mental subtlety to appreciate the thought processes of LDS apologists to the full.