2nd Watson Letter just found!'

[_Yoda]

I'm curious. Exactly what would happen if President Monson just came out and announced that there was one Hill Cumorah....the one in New York? If he came out and said, "The Lord has absolutely revealed to me that the Hill Cumorah in New York is the place where the Nephite battles took place."

What would that do to the Maxwell Institute research? Would it severely impact them from a financial situation, or would they simply move on with other apologetic endeavors?

Frankly, the standard "Chapel Mormon" answer of "the ways of the Lord are not the ways of man" could bring down any type of scientific or geographical research.

[_beastie]

I think it would be HUGELY significant, because if the Nephite battles took place in NY, then the Mesoamerican model is dead.

[_Yoda]

I think it would be HUGELY significant, because if the Nephite battles took place in NY, then the Mesoamerican model is dead.

Maybe it should be.

[Guest]

Hi, liz,

If TSM declared that God had revealed to him that the Book of Mormon Cumorah (where the last Nephite battles occurred and Moroni buried the bulk of plates) is what is known as the Hill Cumorah in New York, then 1-the Mesoamerica geography theory crumbles, and 2-critics of LDS doctrine can use science that contradicts the New York Hill Cumorah = the Book of Mormon Cumorah to bang over the head of FARMS. (by the way, Meldrum would be vindicated.)

FARMS needs fuzzy doctrine. It gives them latitude within which to hypothesize Book of Mormon history within the realm of scientific findings. This is the obvious reason for such spirited defenses by them over at MA&DB regarding the '2nd Watson Letter'.

B.H. Roberts asked the Brethren way back in the 1930s to ask God to reveal the answers to Roberts' 5 Book of Mormon questions. From the time of Brigham Young to when Roberts so asked the Brethren, they'd wised up to the problems of revealed specifics later being made to look silly by scientific developments. They'd wrestled by then with a number of such specifics that had come out of the mouths or from the writings of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, just as Roberts' 5 Book of Mormon questions illustrated.

[_beastie]

Well, yes, it should be dead, but the death of the Mesoamerican LGT model pretty much means the death of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, which would also conflict with the hypothetical revelation.

There is currently no evidence that any society had the prerequisite social complexity (note, this is different than overall population levels) that could fit what is described in the Book of Mormon, during the specified time range, with one exception. Mesoamerica. That's why apologists are so determined that it's Mesoamerica. Very little else fits, but at least there's the requisite social complexity present.

[_harmony]

Well, yes, it should be dead, but the death of the Mesoamerican LGT model pretty much means the death of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, which would also conflict with the hypothetical revelation.

I think the next generation will have no clue as to why anyone would be concerned about historicity. It will simply be a non-issue. As the church ages, myth takes over, and that is just natural progression.

[_Paul Osborne]

I'm curious. Exactly what would happen if President Monson just came out and announced that there was one Hill Cumorah....the one in New York? If he came out and said, "The Lord has absolutely revealed to me that the Hill Cumorah in New York is the place where the Nephite battles took place."

Tommy boy is a coward. He isn't going to do anything out of the ordinary. He will continue to munch down on the meals provided, be driven around town and towed about where ever he goes. He is showpiece. A puppet. A stuffed animal. A teddy bear. I like IKE!

LOL

Paul O

[_Polygamy-Porter]

I'm curious. Exactly what would happen if President Monson just came out and announced that there was one Hill Cumorah....the one in New York? If he came out and said, "The Lord has absolutely revealed to me that the Hill Cumorah in New York is the place where the Nephite battles took place."

Jesus just told me that HE would not allow Tommy TuTone Monson to do such a thing...as that is the last thing his dad wants is a bunch of jerk off Mormons pestering him with question prayers...

BUT he did say he was growing tired of DCP and his pretend-amony, so Jesus is stuck with a tough decision. "God DAMNIT!" he said..

[_Nimrod]

Well, yes, it should be dead, but the death of the Mesoamerican LGT model pretty much means the death of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, which would also conflict with the hypothetical revelation.

I think the next generation will have no clue as to why anyone would be concerned about historicity. It will simply be a non-issue. As the church ages, myth takes over, and that is just natural progression.

mfbukowski could be a pre-runner of that next generation. For the life of me, I've struggled with how it is possible that mfb could fail to see the issue or the arguments on the 2nd Watson Letter saga. Not that he has to agree with the critics' perspective, just that as a rational being, he should be able to see other perspectives after the more than adequate explanations beastie has given over at MA&DB. But maybe he is the first of the next generation of which harmony speaks.

The question surrounding the 2nd Watson Letter is whether the FP has or has not backed off of the 'traditional' stance, 'long maintained' by the LDS Church of One Cumorah (the one in New York state) and now specifies no geographical site for Cumorah?

The 10/16/1990 Watson letter clearly explained the FP's position of One Cumorah.
Does the 4/23/1993 Ogden fax retract the 10/16/1990 One Cumorah Watson letter and establish that the Church specifies no geography for Cumorah? Or does the One Cumorah 10/16/1990 letter yet stand because the 4/12/1993 fax was from the less authoritative Carla Ogden, not even bearing her signature?

mfb appears to be a good apologist, loyal to FARMS. mfb even seems hell bent on accepting a prior that the FP has backed away from One Cumorah (New York), to no geographical specificity, and views the discussion about a '2nd Watson Letter' through that prism. mfb does not see the possibility that the 10/16/1990 Watson, although declarative and clear about One Cumorah being the doctrine of the Brethren, as anything but an anomaly (actually, not even that much--see discussion below in this post). mfb is perplexed why anyone would consider it an issue and discuss it, because for mfb it is not even an issue. As FARMS says, the Church does not (and never has) specified New York as the location of the Book of Mormon Cumorah. So how could it be an issue? FARMS has said it is not.

In fact, mfb's reasoning goes further: the One Cumorah 10/16/1990 Watson letter does not even show FP duplicity in light of geographical neutrality since before that letter. In mfb's mental construct, it is not misleading for the FP to answer a member's inquiry about where the Book of Mormon Cumorah by saying New York. Since, according to mfb, the Church doctrine specifies no location, it could be New York, and so it is not incorrect for the FP to tell the member it is in New York. And this answer does not, in mfb's world, evidence that the FP/Church actually does specify One Cumorah as doctrine.

Why does mfb believe, a prior, that the FP/Church specifies no location for Cumorah in the first place? All the mentions by general authorities and Watson's 10/16/1990 letter notwithstanding, mfb accepts the FARMS mantra that the FP/Church specifies no location for Cumorah. The FARMS mantra is expressed by Palmer in the 'Cumorah' entry in Ludlow's Encyclopedia of Mormonism, citing Palmer himself back to a 1981 book he authored.

For ecclesiastical justification, FARMS needs more than Cannon, Talmadge and Widtsoe saying the Church does not specify the Cumorah location. They were decades ago, and each in his time, a lone voice in the wilderness of general authorities on this issue. FARMS needs the most recent pronouncement from the FP to be that the Church does not specify the Cumorah location. That gives FARMS the scholarly latitude to hypothesize about any possible location of Cumorah as scientific evidence continues to develop. (As Professor Dan pointed out in one of his posts on MA&DB, he would not see it as correct for the FP to adopt the Two Cumorah theory (i.e., the Book of Mormon Cumorah in Mesoamerica and the Joseph Smith Cumorah in New York) http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208775362. Professor Dan is keeping an eye on the future, and the fact that scientific developments could come that makes Mesoamerica incompatible with what the Book of Mormon says about Cumorah.)

When the 10/16/1990 Watson Letter (One Cumorah) was published, this threw FARMS for a loop, sent them reeling back from critics and even put them on the defensive as to many questioning faithful. Hamblin first, then Professor Dan, and in 2004 Roper all tried to lean on a 4/23/1990 correspondence "from Watson" which in all probability is nothing more than the Ogden Fax. Without the Ogden Fax, that most recent pronouncement is One Cumorah, per the 10/16/1990 Watson letter. And thus, the importance of the Ogden Fax (formerly propped up to be a '2nd Watson Letter' so that it effectively retracted the 10/16/1990 Watson letter).

Given the overwhelming motive and purpose for FARMS to imbue the 4/23/1993 fax from Carla Ogden with 'dignities' equal to (if not greater than) the 10/16/1990 Watson letter, Hamblin and Professor Dan tried standing fast that the 4/23/1993 was in fact a letter and from Watson. They were adamant and specific that it was a letter, not a fax, and it was from Watson, not Ogden. When that became no longer tenable in face of the facts and critical analysis of them, Hamblin switched the source of his quote having been a pre-1985 letter from Watson that he was quoting, not as his footnote at the time put the date as 4/23/1993. Hamblin can produce neither the 4/23/1993 letter from Watson or the pre-1985 letter from Watson. Nevertheless, Professor Dan goes along with Hamblin's new tack and so too without som much as a question do their minions (Calmoriah, wenglund, Scott Lloyd and mfb to name a few). If must be true: Hamblin said it and Professor Dan agrees.

mfb cannot fathom that the Church position specifies One Cumorah. FARMS tells him the Church specifies no Cumorah geography. When it boils down to it, mfb defers to FARMS to explain and interpret pronouncements from the FP for mfb. This FARMS filter insulates mfb from the need to think for himself, even as to statements from the FP. mfb's faith is that he will not be led astray--by FARMS. His faith is in FARMS, even in the face of contradicting statements from FP.

This is the madness that beastie has been valiantly trying to dispel, not by attempting to convince mfb, Scott Lloyd, etc. but to help them understand the significance of the 2nd Watson Letter to FARMS apologia. For them, it is as impossible for them to imagine that Hamblin and Professor Dan are fallible (either in memory or integrity) as it would be for them to imagine such of TSM. Their faith would be just as shaken in either instance.

For mfb, it might even be more shaken if FARMS is demonstrated fallible than TSM. mfb has said, Brigham Young is not "the church" in explaining away the Adam God theory as not doctrinal for the Church. http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/46468-in-need-of-convincing-lds-scholarship/page__view__findpost__p__1208776805 If not Brigham Young, when he was prophet who then could speak for the Church? For mfb, since FARMS did not then exist, no one could speak for the Church. Today, mfb has FARMS to define for him what is and is not Church doctrine.

It's been a long time since I encountered this mindset. It was at BYU in the 1970s. Then the object of such 'affection' was Nibley. Now it is Professor Dan (and Hamblin). Just as with Nibley, Professor Dan's explanations just don't ring true or complete. For their followers like mfb, it is in short being intellectually incorrigible. It so warps logic and thought, that mfb cannot see how the FP explaining to a member the New York site for Cumorah is incongruent with the FP specifying no geographical site for Cumorah. Either the FP does or does not specify a site. To try and have it both ways is nothing short of being duplicitous.

beastie, you cannot reason with the intellectually incorrigible. This is the best that I can do to explain mfb's intransigence.

[_beastie]

Nimrod,

I'm so glad that you were following the insanity and tried to help me understand MF's point. For the life of me, I simply have not been able to successfully follow him. My latest idea was that perhaps he never accepted the Watson letter OR the Ogden fax as speaking for the FP, and that's why he sees no inconsistency. Did you see his latest, where he rejected my newspaper analogy because the "real" editor hadn't spoken? That's what gave me the idea that maybe he simply did not accept the Watson OR Ogden correspondences as authoritatively speaking for the FP in the first place.

And what do you make of the insistence of some posters that the scripture guide attached to the online scriptures doesn't have any more authority than any other writing????

I had forgotten how MADdening these conversations tend to be.