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

[_Wonder]

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

A question: How did the manual's compilers determine what was "revealed" and what was not?

Are we to infer that all of Jospeh Smith's quotes included in the manual are canon?

[_Tom]

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....I was on the floor of the Marriott center when President Merrill Bateman gave the main 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.

The audio file is available on the BYU web site here.

[_Henry Jacobs]

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.

When all of a text is quoted except one paragraph, "partially unquoted" may be more accurate.

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.

Love it! Your solution to why a critical paragraph is the only one missing from the letter?-They should also have deleted the statement to Bastow, the one that makes the critical deletion REALLY, GLARINGLY obvious! It seems you are just a little more devious than the current curriculum committee. Using your superior intelligence to manipulate better than the next guy is not very nice.

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.

Bold mine.

Did the "anthology of quotations" also delete Joseph saying "I think, I believe, my opinion is, could be, might be, maybe" from that letter, Dr. Peterson? What part of the letter gives you the impression Joseph was speculating? And at what point can other members begin applying "his speculation" to whichever Joseph Smith quotes they think are inconvenient to their "contemporary discussion"?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The desperately was a nice touch.

I call 'em like I see 'em.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.
...
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."
...
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.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you concerning Merrill Bateman. I see nothing to suggest he was fired from any job. He did his stint at BYU (which I believe was roughly the same as the tenure of Oaks and Holland (and probably Lee, if he had lived longer)), and then put in the presidency of the Seventy. When he hit the retirement age of 70 for Seventy (pun intended), he was granted emeritus status (as are all Seventy who reach 70), and has since been called as a temple president. From my perspective, the Brethren appear very happy with his service (as for claims of "mismanagement," Bateman was a high corporate executive and MBA professor before being called as a GA, so this claim seems unlikely).

[_Daniel Peterson]

When all of a text is quoted except one paragraph, "partially unquoted" may be more accurate.

That's fine. Choose whichever word you prefer.

Love it! Your solution to why a critical paragraph is the only one missing from the letter?-They should also have deleted the statement to Bastow, the one that makes the critical deletion REALLY, GLARINGLY obvious! It seems you are just a little more devious than the current curriculum committee. Using your superior intelligence to manipulate better than the next guy is not very nice.

One of the things I most appreciate about the mindset on this board -- and one of the things I find most fascinating about it -- is the recurrent assumption that defenders of Mormonism in general (and yours truly, in particular) are always, or virtually always, acting in bad faith.

It makes for such pleasant and civil conversation.

What part of the letter gives you the impression Joseph was speculating?

Joseph's overall record makes it pretty clear that he had not received, and did not claim to have received, revelation concerning the specifics of Book of Mormon geography. He read and speculated and shifted his position just like anybody else.

[_Chap]

Joseph's overall record makes it pretty clear that he had not received, and did not claim to have received, revelation concerning the specifics of Book of Mormon geography. He read and speculated and shifted his position just like anybody else.

Well, as I said at the end of my post above:

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

Still all the same, unless the word 'specifics' is bearing a very heavy weight in the passage by DCP - so that for instance DCP is saying that Joseph did not even have revealed to him in which country the Book of Mormon events happened (which would seem to constitute the barest minimum possible) - it does not quite seem to dispose of what I said:

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.

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?)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Joseph's overall record makes it pretty clear that he had not received, and did not claim to have received, revelation concerning the specifics of Book of Mormon geography. He read and speculated and shifted his position just like anybody else.

Perhaps he did on some specifics, but not as to his general hemispheric view of the Book of Mormon. Some examples:

1. Before receving the plates in Sept. 1827, Lucy relates in her bio that he was regularly visited and tutored by the Angel Moroni (which is why he could tell his family of specifics concerning Nephite cities, people, culture, etc., before he got the plates -- also, Lucy says he was referring to the hill where he uncovered the plates as "Cumorah" in early 1827, well before he got the plates (and could read that work in the translation) -- clearly Moroni gave him that name;

2. The information he gave about Zelph was from a revelation (according to Wilford Woodruff, who was present);

3. His letter to Emma (from Illinois) a day or two after the Zelph revelation, speaking of walking over Nephite plains, etc.; and, of course

4. The Wentworth Letter (the unredacted version).

The fact is, much of what Joseph knew about Book of Mormon history and geography he got from divine sources: the Angel Moroni and revelation. Thus, using Joseph as a source of Book of Mormon general geography can never be equaled by man-made logic and learning. This is why I think the LGT is doomed to failure.

[_Henry Jacobs]

When all of a text is quoted except one paragraph, "partially unquoted" may be more accurate.

That's fine. Choose whichever word you prefer.

I prefer accuracy.

One of the things I most appreciate about the mindset on this board -- and one of the things I find most fascinating about it -- is the recurrent assumption that defenders of Mormonism in general (and yours truly, in particular) are always, or virtually always, acting in bad faith.

It makes for such pleasant and civil conversation.

I assumed nothing. I noted what you said. Your solution to the problem of a single critical paragraph being clipped from the Wentworth letter would not be to simply put it back in the manual, to give members full information with which to better understand Joseph Smith. Your apologetic reaction was to wish that Joseph’s explicit request that nothing be excluded from his remarks had ALSO been clipped. How does withholding even more critical information from the membership help them understand the issue? All your solution would do is help members remain ignorant to the fact that the writers of their church materials had acted against the wishes of the founding prophet.

Is that "acting in bad faith"? I think so, but I didn’t need to assume anything. You said it!

And I still wonder if all members are allowed to label Joseph Smith's written statements "speculation" or just apologists.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I assumed nothing. I noted what you said.

Right.

Your solution to the problem of a single critical paragraph being clipped from the Wentworth letter would not be to simply put it back in the manual, to give members full information with which to better understand Joseph Smith.

I don't think that the purpose of the manual is to provide "full information with which to better understand Joseph Smith."

The Joseph Smith Papers will do that.

The purpose of the manual is to provide a selection of materials from Joseph Smith -- quotes, and not typically full texts -- that will teach the principles the Church wishes to have taught.

I see no reason to believe that the Church wants the Joseph Smith manual to serve as a springboard for discussions of the location of the Jaredite city of Lib or of Book of Mormon geography in general.

Any selection will, by definition, be selective.

Your apologetic reaction was to wish that Joseph’s explicit request that nothing be excluded from his remarks had ALSO been clipped.

I don't see much reason for including it in a selection of materials for teachings chosen for contemporary applicability, and I don't read that "explicit request" as banning any future partial quotations from the Wentworth letter. Joseph was asking that his letter be published in its entirety in the newspaper. I've often requested similar things when submitting something for publication: "Please don't truncate this. Publish it in its entirety. Or, if you must edit it, let me see the alterations you propose before it goes to press." But I've never imagined, by such a request, that I was thereby prohibiting any and all future partial quotations from what I had written.

How does withholding even more critical information from the membership help them understand the issue?

As I expressly said above, I don't believe that any discussion of this issue should fail to take Joseph's statement on the issue into account.

But I also don't believe that the Joseph Smith manual sought to address this issue, and, since it's a selection, I don't see that dealing with this or any other particular issue is absolutely mandatory. That's what curriculum committees are for.

If, in fact, the purpose of the manual were, in whole or in part, to provide "critical information" on Book of Mormon geography to the membership of the Church in order to "help them understand the issue," there would be lots and lots of other items that would have to be included in it in order to make such full-orbed understanding genuinely possible. Such items have, on the whole, not been included -- and I see no problem with this, since I don't think that it was even a tertiary purpose of the manual to provide "critical information" on Book of Mormon geography to the membership of the Church in order to "help them understand the issue."

All your solution would do is help members remain ignorant to the fact that the writers of their church materials had acted against the wishes of the founding prophet.

I really don't believe that Joseph Smith was demanding that, forever and in perpetuity, the Wentworth letter must be published in its entirety or else never quoted at all.