Peterson Misleading Again

[_Daniel Peterson]

Did you read the letter Bill Hamblin wrote to Michael Watson?

I believe I did.

I don't remember it very precisely, but, as I recall, he expressed some concern about the letter from Brother Watson that the Tanners were brandishing. It certainly wasn't an example of "browbeating." And it wasn't overly long. I can promise anybody who wonders that, if my friend had attempted to "browbeat" the secretary to the First Presidency, I would have remembered that.

[_Bond...James Bond]

What did Joey do this weekend? Watch Batman?

Jesus would have watched Batman. I bet he was quite rustic and earthy in his theatrical tastes.

[_bcspace]

I have read it but it still leaves me confused. Maybe I am just not smart enough for Mormonism.

According to the link in your Sig it states "This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."

The preceeding sentence is the key. It must be approved by the FP and the Qo12 AND publiched in an official work.

and then you have the talks like the one I already pointed out like the "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" that will quote something like this

So it's not an accurate quote?

So here you have the early Church (and being quoted in a Conference Talk in the 80s) with People saying that when people give revelations (I am assuming the current prophets) that it should match the Standard Works. Then Brigham Young gets up and says that when compared to the living oracles, those books (the standard works) are nothing.

Sure. Continuing revelation Trump's past revelation.

It seems that some members will put the standard works higher than what the current prophet will say and some will say the prophet Trump's the standard works. Two messages are being sent out and which one do we listen to. Do we listen to a talk given by a Prophet or do we listen to a web site page at LDS.org in the newsroom section which does not even list the author of the text.

Here is how you tell if it's doctrine or not...

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

Two messages are being sent out and which one do we listen to. Do we listen to a talk given by a Prophet or do we listen to a web site page at LDS.org in the newsroom section which does not even list the author of the text.

A doctrinal talk by a prophet will be published by the Church; Ensign and such. Everything else is just an isolated statement. Only one message here.

[_bcspace]

In a religion claiming over 12 million adherents, bcspace is one of an elite few (which, apparently, excludes members of the ruling hierarchy) who actually understand what doctrine is.

Amazing!

Apparently I am in perfect harmony with the bretheren as I am simply referring to and applying what they have actually said.

[_Joey]

I saw a letter. No more official than the letter reproduced by the Tanners. But also no less official.

What the hell did the Tanners have to do with the Office of the First Presidency issuing a letter to Bishop Brooks?????

Nothing. But you are obviously very desperate in attempting to discredit the letter to elevate a FARMS article as something official which is just plain deceiving. The Tanners had no influence, motivation nor agenda in the letter from the First Presidency to Brooks. Hamblin, on the other hand, had a very specific agenda, on behalf of FARMS, in the supposed one he received from Watson.

The fact that this supposed letter from Watson to Hamblin will never see the light of day is quite telling and obvious that it is not what you and he claim it to be.

And, as the one from the First Presidency to Brooks clearly states, it was the position long maintained by "the Church", not some personal opinion of the signature! It is far more official than you want it to be.

Trying to obfuscate the issue by bringing up the Tanners is evidence of your claim to an "official" position is simply not true. But you have to go with the best position you have. Unfortunately, not all are as gullible as those at that other board and in Provo.

Try as you may, you cannot provide any official statement from the church other than the one Brooks received. You are a piece of work, though!

[_Daniel Peterson]

I saw a letter. No more official than the letter reproduced by the Tanners. But also no less official.

What the hell did the Tanners have to do with the Office of the First Presidency issuing a letter to Bishop Brooks?????

Nothing.

Nothing, except that they took that letter from the secretary to the First Presidency written to "Bishop Brooks" and reproduced it in order to score a point.

But you are obviously very desperate in attempting to discredit the letter to elevate a FARMS article as something official which is just plain deceiving.

I have never suggested -- "desperately" or otherwise -- that this or any other FARMS article is "something official."

I've simply pointed out that the letter that Michael Watson wrote to Professor Hamblin on First Presidency letterhead -- and which is quoted, in full, in Professor Hamblin's article -- is no less "official" than is the letter that Michael Watson wrote to "Bishop Brooks."

The Tanners had no influence, motivation nor agenda in the letter from the First Presidency to Brooks.

I've never suggested otherwise.

Hamblin, on the other hand, had a very specific agenda, on behalf of FARMS, in the supposed one he received from Watson.

Professor Hamblin no more dictated Michael Watson's letter to him than the Tanners dictated Michael Watson's letter to "Bishop Brooks."

The fact that this supposed letter from Watson to Hamblin will never see the light of day is quite telling and obvious that it is not what you and he claim it to be.

And you know this with such certainty . . . how, exactly?

Scratch (a.k.a. Hack) and Scratch Junior (a.k.a. Caz) have been beating this same drum for quite a long time now. I've issued to them the same cordial invitation that I now offer to you: If you seriously believe that Professor Hamblin and I have forged a letter from the First Presidency -- or even that we're deliberately and publicly misrepresenting its contents -- you should most certainly bring this allegation to the attention of the Office of the First Presidency. A pair of BYU professors would not long retain their jobs if it were established that they had brazenly lied, in print, about a communication to one of them from the leadership of the Church that sponsors the University, and it's not inconceivable that they would even forfeit their membership in the Church. Your triumph would be clear, decisive, and undeniable. We would be discredited forever.

And, as the one from the First Presidency to Brooks clearly states, it was the position long maintained by "the Church", not some personal opinion of the signature! It is far more official than you want it to be.

If the Church has an official Book of Mormon geography, you should be able to find a primary official source in which that official geography is authoritatively set forth. You shouldn't be reduced to triumphantly jumping up and down while pointing to the reproduction in a publication of Utah Lighthouse Ministry of a letter from the secretary in the Office of the First Presidency to some "Bishop Brooks" somewhere. (I suggest a careful search through James R. Clark's multivolume Messages of the First Presidency as a good place to start.)

Trying to obfuscate the issue by bringing up the Tanners is evidence of your claim to an "official" position is simply not true.

You're right. I've never done that.

But you have to go with the best position you have.

That's a generally sound strategy, I think.

Unfortunately, not all are as gullible as those at that other board and in Provo.

Gullibility is an amusing word to use to tag people who believe that official statements of the Church will be promulgated by the leaders of the Church themselves through official Church channels directly to the membership of the Church.

Try as you may, you cannot provide any official statement from the church other than the one Brooks received. You are a piece of work, though!

The feeling is precisely mutual. Try as you may, this obscure letter written by a secretary to a "Bishop Brooks" and made available to the general public not by the Ensign or the Church News or the Church web site or a reading in sacrament meeting or a proclamation in General Conference but by Jerald and Sandra Tanner's Utah Lighthouse Ministry, appears to be the closest thing to an official Church statement on the geography of the Book of Mormon that you can manage to find to support your position. Yet you insist on it, and even affect an air of triumphalism about it. Speaking of "a piece of work."

[_beastie]

This strict dichotomy between "official doctrine" and "common teaching" is irrelevant. The fact is that church leaders have believed, and taught, that the Hill Cumorah in NY is the same Hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon.

A talk by Mark E. Peterson, “The Last Words of Moroni”, Ensign, Nov 1978
Peterson

Moroni’s father was commander of the armies of this ancient people, known as Nephites. His name was Mormon. The war of which we speak took place here in America some four hundred years after Christ. (See Morm. 6.)
As the fighting neared its end, Mormon gathered the remnant of his forces about a hill which they called Cumorah, located in what is now the western part of the state of New York.

Their enemies, known as Lamanites, came against them on this hill. Of that dreadful event Mormon wrote:
“My people, with their wives and their children, did now behold the armies of the Lamanites marching towards them; and with that awful fear of death which fills the breasts of all the wicked, did they await to receive them.

“… Every soul was filled with terror because of the greatness of their numbers.
“And it came to pass that they did fall upon my people with the sword, and with the bow, and with the arrow, and with the ax, and with all manner of weapons of war.
“And it came to pass that my men were hewn down, yea, even my ten thousand who were with me, and I fell wounded in the midst.” (Morm. 6:7–10.)
Then he spoke of other leaders serving with him in the Nephite army, all of whom had fallen with the forces under their command. He accounted for about a quarter of a million Nephite soldiers killed in that final encounter at Cumorah.

Marion G. Romney, “America’s Destiny”, Ensign, Nov 1975

Romney

In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the “hill Cumorah.” (Morm. 6:6.) On July twenty-fifth of this year, as I stood on the crest of that hill admiring with awe the breathtaking panorama which stretched out before me on every hand, my mind reverted to the events which occurred in that vicinity some twenty-five centuries ago—events which brought to an end the great Jaredite nation.

You who are acquainted with the Book of Mormon will recall that during the final campaign of the fratricidal war between the armies led by Shiz and those led by Coriantumr “nearly two millions” of Coriantumr’s people had been slain by the sword; “two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children.” (Ether 15:2.)
As the conflict intensified, all the people who had not been slain—men “with their wives and their children” (Ether 15:15)—gathered about that hill Cumorah (see Ether 15:11).

[_bcspace]

This strict dichotomy between "official doctrine" and "common teaching" is irrelevant. The fact is that church leaders have believed, and taught, that the Hill Cumorah in NY is the same Hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon.

John L. Sorenson wrote a two parter for the Ensign about late 1984 which made two Cumorah's a very real possibility within LDS doctrine; not because of Sorenson, but because it was published by the Church.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The fact is that church leaders have believed, and taught, that the Hill Cumorah in NY is the same Hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon.

There is absolutely not the slightest question about that.

Proponents of limited Mesoamerican models are definitely going against a consensus that has been dominant for many, many years.

But there has never been an official Church endorsement of the consensus. People have been entirely free to dissent publicly from it -- in classes at the Church's university, in Deseret Book publications (e.g., Sorenson's Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon), in the pages of the Ensign (e.g., Sorenson's two-part essay expressing a limited Mesoamerican model roughly two decades ago), etc.

No comparable freedom to dissent exists in areas where the Church truly does have an official position. Advocacy of premarital sex won't last long in a BYU classroom. Deseret Book doesn't publish volumes denying the existence of God. The Ensign never runs articles questioning the atonement of Christ. The Maxwell Institute would not prosper long if it decided to deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon, whereas it seems to do alright even though people prominently associated with it (including me) publicly favor a Mesoamerican geography that includes a Mesoamerican Cumorah. And so forth.

[_beastie]

John L. Sorenson wrote a two parter for the Ensign about late 1984 which made two Cumorah's a very real possibility within LDS doctrine; not because of Sorenson, but because it was published by the Church.

You prove my point. The fact that this was a notable event indicates that my premise is correct - church leaders have commonly believed and taught that Cumorah is in NY. I realize that there are more and more pushing for the silly "two cumorahs", but it's because they don't have any other choice, and they are pushing against centuries of church teachings.

But to try and pretend that the church hasn't historically taught that Cumorah is in NY because is silly, and that is what the insistence on "official doctrine" misleadingly insinuates.

Even the main proponents of "two cumorahs" admit that they were taught the NY cumorah idea throughout their lives, and they had to rethink the proposition as they studied more.