What Watson (supposedly) really said to Hamblin/FARMS

[_SatanWasSetUp]

When it comes to choosing between the apologists and the statements from church leaders I would advise any TBM who wanted to believe really bad to put their faith in FARMS and apologists like Peterson and Hamblin over the so-called prophets and apostles. We like to poke fun at the apologists here, but I think we can all agree that their opinions and teachings are much more accurate and credible than any of the prophets and apostles over the past 172 years.

[_The Nehor]

When it comes to choosing between the apologists and the statements from church leaders I would advise any TBM who wanted to believe really bad to put their faith in FARMS and apologists like Peterson and Hamblin over the so-called prophets and apostles. We like to poke fun at the apologists here, but I think we can all agree that their opinions and teachings are much more accurate and credible than any of the prophets and apostles over the past 172 years.

I disagree.

[_scipio337]

When it comes to choosing between the apologists and the statements from church leaders I would advise any TBM who wanted to believe really bad to put their faith in FARMS and apologists like Peterson and Hamblin over the so-called prophets and apostles. We like to poke fun at the apologists here, but I think we can all agree that their opinions and teachings are much more accurate and credible than any of the prophets and apostles over the past 172 years.

Both can be approached with more than a little disbelief. The Salamander Letter and subsequent FARMs defense come to mind.

[_antishock8]

Funny how Mr. Friend just up and disappeared...

[_Daniel Peterson]

choosing between the apologists and the statements from church leaders

That's a formulation worthy of beastie herself.

[_Tom]

"In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the “hill Cumorah.” 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 .

"This second civilization to which I refer, the Nephites, flourished in America between 600 B.C. and A.D. 400. Their civilization came to an end for the same reason, at the same place, and in the same manner as did the Jaredites’" (Talk given by President Marion G. Romney in General Conference, October 4, 1975, Ensign Nov. 1975 pg. 35)

The current (1996) Book of Mormon Institute manual comments on Ether 2:7-10 by quoting from this talk (pp. 158-59). Will it make the cut for the next edition of the manual?

[_beastie]

SatanWasSetUp wrote:
choosing between the apologists and the statements from church leaders


That's a formulation worthy of beastie herself.

Why, yes, you silly fool! We can make words mean anything we want them to mean. Author intent is irrelevant, my friend. We will simply "adjust" their meaning here and there, and everything will fit just fine.

[_Trevor]

The current (1996) Book of Mormon Institute manual comments on Ether 2:7-10 by quoting from this talk (pp. 158-59). Will it make the cut for the next edition of the manual?

Secret sources say, "Nein!"

[_Daniel Peterson]

"In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the “hill Cumorah.” 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 .

"This second civilization to which I refer, the Nephites, flourished in America between 600 B.C. and A.D. 400. Their civilization came to an end for the same reason, at the same place, and in the same manner as did the Jaredites’" (Talk given by President Marion G. Romney in General Conference, October 4, 1975, Ensign Nov. 1975 pg. 35)

Notice that President Romney didn't say "As I stood on the crest of that hill admiring with awe the breathtaking panorama which stretched out before me on every hand, the Lord opened my eyes to see that the events which brought to an end the great Jaredite and Nephite nations occurred in that very vicinity many centuries ago." He claimed no revelation that that was the place. His focus wasn't on Book of Mormon geography, but on the destruction of those two nations and the lessons to be learned from that destruction.

It's an entirely plausible reading of his comments, therefore, to see them as reflecting the assumption, largely unexamined by Latter-day Saints for roughly a century and a half at that time, that the final battles occurred in New York, but as based on no specific revelation to that effect.

In fact, the Book of Mormon doesn't tell us where the plates were finally buried, so it certainly doesn't tell us that they were buried in the same hill as the one on which the final battles occurred, and there are internal reasons (and, now, external archaeological ones) for concluding that the final battles did not occur at the New York hill.

Absent revelation saying otherwise, then, believing Latter-day Saints are free to speculate about where the final battles did occur. And, in doing so, they violate no official or revealed teaching of the Church. Which is why, for example, some of them have been allowed to publish such speculations with Deseret Book and in the Ensign, to discuss them at Education Week and in classes at BYU, and etc.

In the meantime, the lessons President Romney drew from the destruction of the Nephites and the Lamanites remain valid, because the precise location of that destruction isn't really relevant to them.

Its entirely possible to recognize prophetic authority without believing in prophetic infallibility. I've done it ever since I became active in the Church, and am not inclined to listen to critics who themselves believe nothing but want to insist that I have to believe that every detail recounted and every assumption held by every leader of the Church is binding upon me. Not even the Book of Mormon itself claims inerrancy. If I can accept that canonized scripture contains "the mistakes of men," why must I hold that General Authority talks cannot?

[_Tom]

I take that as a "yes" response to my question.