Peterson: Still lying, still a coward

[_Joey]

Wow! Just saw the latest in the Watson Letter exchange over at Fort Provo Board. There is a new convert who apparently is an atty who has Peterson running for his life on explaining things. Looks like he had to call in Hamblin for the insult gang up.

But here is a great  question this new convert asked to Provo that is sure to be telling if Provo has the courage to answer or just tries to get this guy banned:

Mr Peterson,  

Can I just limit this to two questions for you:

Do you believe the 1990 letter from the Office of the First Presidency was a communication from President Hinckley? (If you don't, can you explain, on a comparative basis, how the fax from Ms Ogden was a communication from Mr Watson, let alone from the Church?)

When did the Church change it's long maintained position, 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.


I appreciate your responses but I've found in my life's practices that shorter answers are usually more accurate.  Maybe it's just a lawyer thing.

Thanks

I bet a steak dinner that Peterson won't post again in that thread after that question!

[_Yoda]

Joey...do you have a link to the thread? Thanks!

[_Doctor Scratch]

The thread is here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/565 ... e__st__160

As far as I can tell, Bob Oliverio has been 100% sincere in his questions, and he genuinely seems shaken over his discovery of this "2nd Watson Letter" fiasco. Thus, I guess it is somewhat of a predictable bummer that he's being treated so rudely:

Mr Peterson,

Can I just limit this to two questions for you:

Do you believe the 1990 letter from the Office of the First Presidency was a communication from President Hinckley? (If you don't, can you explain, on a comparative basis, how the fax from Ms Ogden was a communication from Mr Watson, let alone from the Church?)

When did the Church change it's long maintained position, 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.


I appreciate your responses but I've found in my life's practices that shorter answers are usually more accurate. Maybe it's just a lawyer thing.

Thanks

Short answers don't seem to be any more effective with you than long ones. Alas, I fear Professor Hamblin was right in his assessment.

Are you, by chance, a Meldrum devotee?

Do you believe the 1990 letter from the Office of the First Presidency was a communication from President Hinckley?

No. It was, as it says it was, a communication from F. Michael Watson, the secretary to the First Presidency, to a bishop in Oklahoma. It seems, though, to have been written at the request of President Hinckley (who would become president of the Church five years later, in 1995).

If you're insinuating that it probably reflected President Hinckley's opinion on the matter in 1990, your insinuation may well be correct. I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me if it did, since -- as I've been at pains to say, multiple times -- the notion that the final Nephite and Jaredite battles occurred in upstate New York has been the overwhelmingly dominant assumption in the Church since the Church's earliest days. Its "market share" has, I think, declined measurably over the past two or three decades, but it was certainly prevalent during President Hinckley's formative years (he was born in 1910) and it's very probable that he held it in 1990, when he was the first counselor in the First Presidency of the Church. Does that mean that it rested on specific revelation? No. At least, no such revelation has ever been claimed. By anybody. Does it mean that he still held that view in 1993? I don't see how it could possibly mean that, but perhaps he did.

I assume that, in his 1990 letter, Michael Watson felt that he was reflecting the long-standing, majority view of the Church and its leaders, which he indisputably was, and that he was representing the view of President Hinckley and the First Presidency, which he probably also was. But that doesn't make his letter an official statement of Church doctrine.

Incidentally, it was Gordon B. Hinckley, by then the president of the Church, who invited "FARMS" (since renamed the "Maxwell Institute") to affiliate with Brigham Young University in 1997. In extending the invitation, President Hinckley said: "FARMS represents the efforts of sincere and dedicated scholars. It has grown to provide strong support and defense of the Church on a professional basis. . . . I see a bright future for this effort now through the university." He could have used the occasion to demand that FARMS cease contradicting official Church doctrine on the location of the final Nephite and Jaredite battles, but, curiously, he didn't. I represented FARMS in a meeting with President Hinckley, his counselors, President Boyd K. Packer, several of the Twelve, and BYU's President Rex Lee, during which details of that affiliation were discussed. Oddly, nothing was said to me about our quite public advocacy of a non-New-York location for the final Nephite and Jaredite battles -- though it was, ostensibly, in direct contradiction to official Church doctrine.

When did the Church change it's long maintained position, 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.

When did you stop beating your wife?

The Church -- this is my point -- has never (and this is my point) had an official position -- please note this, because it's my point -- on the location of the final Nephite and Jaredite battles. That's precisely my point. It has, to put it another way, never had an official position on the final battles of the Nephites and the Jaredites. (Which is my point.) So I can't tell you when the Church changed its position on that matter, because -- and this is my point -- I deny that the Church ever had such a position.

I appreciate your responses but I've found in my life's practices that shorter answers are usually more accurate. Maybe it's just a lawyer thing.

My life's experience has been that too-short answers are generally simplistic and misleading. But maybe that's just a professor thing. When students submit simplistic answers, I give them bad grades. (If they're lucky, though, they might still be able to get into law school.)

Now, there are a few things worth noticing here (apart from the fact that the Mopologists are being incredibly curt and rude to Bob O.). One is that DCP is contradicting himself: he says that Pres. Hinckley and all of the Brethren likely really did believe that Cumorah was/is located in NY, and that the letter from Michael Watson was a legitimate reflection of that. On the other hand, he insists that this "isn't doctrine." You have to wonder: would the highest leaders and authorities in the Church somehow inadvertently believe in and accept that something isn't doctrine? Or is this more just an admission that the Brethren are essentially clueless on certain key questions like this?

I also thought this was remarkable:

Incidentally, it was Gordon B. Hinckley, by then the president of the Church, who invited "FARMS" (since renamed the "Maxwell Institute") to affiliate with Brigham Young University in 1997. In extending the invitation, President Hinckley said: "FARMS represents the efforts of sincere and dedicated scholars. It has grown to provide strong support and defense of the Church on a professional basis. . . . I see a bright future for this effort now through the university." He could have used the occasion to demand that FARMS cease contradicting official Church doctrine on the location of the final Nephite and Jaredite battles, but, curiously, he didn't. I represented FARMS in a meeting with President Hinckley, his counselors, President Boyd K. Packer, several of the Twelve, and BYU's President Rex Lee, during which details of that affiliation were discussed. Oddly, nothing was said to me about our quite public advocacy of a non-New-York location for the final Nephite and Jaredite battles -- though it was, ostensibly, in direct contradiction to official Church doctrine.

I suppose it's significant that he's basically admitted that the apologists have actively stood "in direct contradiction to official Church doctrine." But much of this is just plain stupid: "He could have used the occasion to demand that FARMS cease contradicting official Church doctrine on the location of the final Nephite and Jaredite battles, but, curiously, he didn't." Huh? Dan finds this "curious"? What, did he think Pres. Hinckley was going to use this very public, celebratory occassion to berate all these Church employees? E.g., "Congrats, guys! We're fully embracing you, giving you your own space at BYU, and our full endorsement, but I'd like to take this opportunity to call you on the carpet for directly contradicting Church doctrine." He's really out to sea if he thinks his point holds any merit whatsoever.

Another issue here pertains to authority, and Bob O. seems to realize this. I.e., which carries more doctrinal authority--a letter on FP letterhead from the FP's office, or an informal fax from somebody named Carla Ogden? Plus, none of this really touches upon the fundamental ethical problem inherent in the fact that Hamblin never said it was a "fax." He claimed all along that it was an actual letter, from Michael Watson. These guys have been caught in a lie and they absolutely refuse to make amends for it.

The consequence of all of this, of course, seems to be that folks will continue to have their testimonies shaken. It's bad enough that there are huge holes in LDS doctrine. What makes it so much worse is that someone with sincere questions is being treated this way. Really, what does Dan think he's accomplishing when he takes swipes at the guy's legal education, or when he says things like this: "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Bob O. would surely benefit a lot more from simple, straightforward, no-B.S. answers. I have little doubt that it would be a thousand times more effective if DCP & Co. told him something to the effect that, "Look: we were concerned about what seemed to be some holes in the doctrine, and we tried to get further clarification. The truth, though, is that we're just not sure. We'd like to help assuage people's doubts, but the fact of the matter is that we just don't have all the answers to this right now." The problem seems to be that this is bound up in these guys' pride over their Mopologetics. The whole episode shows how fundamentally squirrely and dishonest that they can be, and so they feel that covering their asses is more important than helping this guy's wavering testimony.

But what else is new? We've watched Scott Lloyd, Hamblin, Peterson, Pahoran, and the rest of this crew crap relentlessly on these people again and again. It's behavior that has always seemed vaguely abusive in my opinion, and it's made worse by the fact that they do it as a group. The bottom line is that they aren't doing the Church--or its troubled members--any favors.

[_Shulem]

Dr. Scratch,

You made some real good points, and I thank you, kind sir.

Now, let's all remember that Dr. Peterson is only a school teacher in the church. That's it, pure and simple -- nothing more. He has no authority to tell members that the statements made by multiple past apostles and prophets are not doctrine. Dr. Peterson is in the wrong for doing this and no one should regard his apologetics as anything more than smoke and hot air. The current leaders are just giving him a pass because they are afraid to publicly face the issues at General Conference and are just hoping the whole thing will go away by not facing it.

The facts are simple: Past apostles and prophets of the church bore their testimonies to the location of the Book of Mormon and they did so under what they thought was the influence of the Holy Ghost. The members who received their witness also believed the Holy Ghost worked through these prophets and are the men assigned by God to lead the saints into truth. All of this was foundational to testimony and maintaining testimony!

But now we have school teachers (DCP) and apologists who are ashamed of their religion and won't back their prophets because they know their prophets were wrong! I submit to you, DCP has already lost his testimony. He's just working for a living and playing the game; it pays well and he has so much invested in the church. What the hell.

Paul O

[_Doctor Scratch]

But now we have school teachers (DCP) and apologists who are ashamed of their religion and won't back their prophets because they know their prophets were wrong! I submit to you, DCP has already lost his testimony. He's just working for a living and playing the game; it pays well and he has so much invested in the church. What the hell.

Paul O

I think you're right about so many of the apologists being fundamentally embarrassed/ashamed about the Church. They resent the fact that they are being laughed at for believing in things like polygamy, Book of Mormon geography, and Native Americans = Lamanites.

[_Doctor Scratch]

They're digging in their heels:

Jaybear, on another thread, seems adamant that a single word, "yes" or "no," is quite sufficient to answer most any question, that if one goes beyond that, one is evading the question.

"Lawyer thing" indeed!

That was what I was getting at with my "When did you stop beating your wife?" response, above. Bob Oliverio's prior question ("When did the Church change it's long maintained position . . . ?") was, given my claim that the Church has never had a position on the matter, a plain instance of the fallacy of the "loaded question" -- of which the classic illustration is some variation or other of "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

It's not a "loaded question." Bob O. pointed out quite clearly--and DCP agreed--that Cumorah-in-New-York has been the standard, accepted belief of Church leaders clear up until roughly the 1990s.

If you're restricted to a simple yes/no response to that question

It wasn't a "yes/no" question, in case you didn't notice.

-- short answers only! -- then there's no real way to challenge the assumption underlying it.

Uh, you already agreed with "the assumption underlying it."

You're forbidden, under that arbitrary and unfair rule, to respond "I don't have a wife," or "I've never beaten my wife." A "Yes" answer implies, plainly, that you once did beat your wife, but that you've stopped, whereas a "No" answer implies that you're still beating her. Either way, you're guilty.

With Bob Oliverio's question, I could either supply a date for the Church's change of its alleged position, which would grant that it once officially held such a position (which I deny), or, failing to supply such a date, I would be admitting that it still does officially hold that position (which I also deny). It was a loaded question, logically illegitimate.

Bob said "widely held," and DCP agreed that it was so widely held that it was accepted by the top leaders of the Church. Bob's question is: When did this change? The answer, rather obviously, is that this issue of doctrine changed or shifted some time during the 1990s.

Mr Hamblin,

If insulting me makes it easier for you, so be it. If you want civil discourse, you are welcome to answer the two questions I asked Mr Peterson above.

I'm not insulting you. It's just an observation. Dan has explained his position over and over. If you don't understand it by now--and you apparently don't--then you never will.

The only thing to understand here is that if you ask for a straight answer from these guys, you will be jerked around and treated abhorrently. I would tell Bob that he ought to try asking without using the word "official," but the Mopologists will just insert it into the conversation for him, and continue with their usual games. It's clear that they think that toying with people's testimonies in this way is funny--it's one big game for them.

[_Drifting]

That the Hill Cumorah referenced in the Book of Mormon is the one in New York state is current, official doctrine.

From LDS.org this morning...

CUMORAH, HILL
See also Book of Mormon; Moroni, Son of Mormon; Smith, Joseph, Jr..
A small hill located in western New York, United States of America. Here an ancient prophet named Moroni hid the gold plates containing some of the records of the Nephite and Jaredite nations. Joseph Smith was directed to this hill in 1827 by the resurrected Moroni to get these plates and translate a portion of them. This translation is the Book of Mormon.

Nephites gathered at Cumorah, Morm. 6:2–4
Cumorah was in a land of many waters, Morm. 6:4
Mormon hid the records in the Hill Cumorah, Morm. 6:6
All but twenty and four Nephites were slain at Cumorah, Morm. 6:11
We hear glad tidings from Cumorah, D&C 128:20
Joseph Smith took plates from the Hill Cumorah, Joseph Smith—H 1:42, 50–54, 59

It seems that Mr Peterson and the Maxwell Institute are stubbornly remaining in apostasy on this one...

[_Shulem]

I'm going to agree that Dr. Peterson and perhaps a good number of the school teachers at BYU are in a state of limited apostasy regarding the location of the hill Cumorah as revealed by previous prophets of the so-called restored church. Dr. Peterson once shot back at me about some stupid statement made by David O McKay which supposedly dialed down the liability the church had in maintaining the place of New York. Well, all I can say is that David O McKay was off his rocker and was not acting like a true Mormon prophet at that time. He was being like Brigham Young who made other silly statements such as Adam-god and whatnot.

Bottom line, Dr. Peterson doesn't represent Mormonism and some of his quotes don't always represent Mormonism either -- even if they are prophets! Go figure. Prophets against prophets and the whole house comes crashing down. That's Mormonism -- a ruined house of cards.

Mormonism is stuck with New York and there isn't a damn thing they can do to get out of it. You're stuck, Dr. Peterson -- pure and simple. Deal with it. But I will make Dr. Peterson a deal inasmuch if he can tell me the name of the king written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3, I will concede the Cumorah issue. Otherwise, he loses on both counts. And I'm not even a school teacher!! But I challenge him, nonetheless. And don't forget to bring a copy of your diploma to the argument table before you tell me the king's name.

Paul O

[_Yoda]

That the Hill Cumorah referenced in the Book of Mormon is the one in New York state is current, official doctrine.

From LDS.org this morning...

CUMORAH, HILL
See also Book of Mormon; Moroni, Son of Mormon; Smith, Joseph, Jr..
A small hill located in western New York, United States of America. Here an ancient prophet named Moroni hid the gold plates containing some of the records of the Nephite and Jaredite nations. Joseph Smith was directed to this hill in 1827 by the resurrected Moroni to get these plates and translate a portion of them. This translation is the Book of Mormon.

Nephites gathered at Cumorah, Morm. 6:2–4
Cumorah was in a land of many waters, Morm. 6:4
Mormon hid the records in the Hill Cumorah, Morm. 6:6
All but twenty and four Nephites were slain at Cumorah, Morm. 6:11
We hear glad tidings from Cumorah, D&C 128:20
Joseph Smith took plates from the Hill Cumorah, Joseph Smith—H 1:42, 50–54, 59

It seems that Mr Peterson and the Maxwell Institute are stubbornly remaining in apostasy on this one...

Wow! This is pretty significant. BC is more or less our LGT proponent here. I wonder if he, or anyone else would care to comment from an apologetic perspective. I really wish that DCP still posted here. Maybe he or Scott Lloyd will comment on MDD since they read here?

[_Willy Law]

CUMORAH, HILL
See also Book of Mormon; Moroni, Son of Mormon; Smith, Joseph, Jr..
A small hill located in western New York, United States of America. Here an ancient prophet named Moroni hid the gold plates containing some of the records of the Nephite and Jaredite nations. Joseph Smith was directed to this hill in 1827 by the resurrected Moroni to get these plates and translate a portion of them. This translation is the Book of Mormon.

Nephites gathered at Cumorah, Morm. 6:2–4
Cumorah was in a land of many waters, Morm. 6:4
Mormon hid the records in the Hill Cumorah, Morm. 6:6
All but twenty and four Nephites were slain at Cumorah, Morm. 6:11
We hear glad tidings from Cumorah, D&C 128:20
Joseph Smith took plates from the Hill Cumorah, Joseph Smith—H 1:42, 50–54, 59

Bolded for emphasis in case they would like to argue that this refers only to the place where the plates were deposited.