dcp[eterson]

Dear Mr. Burns:

I forgot to mention that I left a message for your director, or whatever he is called.  It read as follows:

"A friend called my attention to your claim that the Church of Jesus Christ is now denying that Brigham Young ever taught plural marriage and that the Church ever practiced or taught it.  Your claim is utterly, completely, false and baseless, as even a cursory bit of research would have shown you.  I will be checking back to see that you have removed it and apologized for your error."

Sincerely,
Daniel Peterson

Daniel,

(First name is ok I trust, grin)
I think what Jim Roberston may be referring to is this.  A Salt Lake city newspaper recently published an article about this very thing you are inquiring about.  They stated something to the effect that young men's and women's training materials are now being "Sanitized" from the historical facts that are undesirable for today's young Mormons.  Jim has the article ad I am sure can provide you with it if you think your church would never do such a thing.  I hope that I am not wrong but am fairly sure this is what your friend is referring to.  It would help Jim and myself if you can tell us where you got this information and who your friend is, so that we can at least understand what you are referencing.  Your response to Jim was quite indignant and I am sure that you will have better luck discussing these matters if you approach people with a more gentle spirit.

Thanks,
Mike

Mr. Burns:

A few observations on your response to me:

BURNS:  "I think what Jim Roberston may be referring to is this.  A Salt Lake city newspaper recently published an article about this very thing you are inquiring about."

PETERSON:  I know precisely what Mr. Robertson has in mind.   I read the article when it first appeared.  I disagreed with the article itself and with the opinions of most of those cited in it, but Mr. Robertson's claim does not even accurately reflect the article.

BURNS:  "They stated something to the effect that young men's and women's training materials are now being 'Sanitized' from the historical facts that are undesirable for today's young Mormons."

PETERSON: That is (roughly) correct.  Various people were cited in the article as expressing their unhappiness or anger about what they regarded as an attempt to ignore plural marriage and certain other controversial issues in the current manual for the Melchizedek priesthood quorums and the Relief Society.  As I say, I disagree with the opinions of those who were quoted.  I am myself quite knowledgeable about Latter-day Saint history, and I am happy, indeed delighted, with the content and approach of the new manual.  I would also point out that the people cited in the article are not at all representative of Latter-day Saint opinion in general, nor of informed or scholarly Latter-day Saint opinion in particular.

But that is not the real issue here. The article cited people who complained that the Church was de-emphasizing certain doctrines and historical facts.   Even if, for purposes of discussion, one grants the truth of their complaint, that complaint is quite distinct from Jim Robertson's assertion that the Church is actually DENYING those doctrines or historical facts.  I am sure that you can see the difference between, say, choosing not to speak about something in one's past and denying that that something ever occurred at all.  Mr. Robertson's claim is false.  It is objectively false on its own merits, and it wildly distorts the content of the Tribune article.

BURNS:  "Jim has the article and I am sure can provide you with it if you think your church would never do such a thing."

PETERSON:  Good.  I am glad to know that he has the article.  That will make it easier for him to learn the truth (if he does not already know it) and to tell the truth.

I don't need a copy of the article.  I have seen it.  And I do know that my church "would never do such a thing" as Mr. Robertson accuses it of doing.  What is more to the point, I know that it has not done so in this specific case.  Mr. Robertson needs to retract his false statement and to offer a public apology on his web site.

BURNS:  "I hope that I am not wrong but am fairly sure this is what your friend is referring to."

PETERSON:  It is.

BURNS:  "It would help Jim and myself if you can tell us where you got this information and who your friend is, so that we can at least understand what you are referencing.

"PETERSON: My friend's identity is irrelevant.  Here is where I got my information: http://www.concernedchristians.org/study/cross/.  Here is what it says:

"My last item for this section deals with a recent article in the Salt Lake Tribune.  Many Mormons are critical of the LDS leaders for the way they are rewriting LDS church history (again!)  This time in the new Priesthood/Relief Society Manual.  In this combined manual they are attempting to further their deception by saying that Brigham Young only had one wife and that polygamy was never officially sanctioned nor practiced by the LDS church.  This has the long time Mormons up in arms.  It is completely amazing to me that the LDS church leaders continue in their deception and their claim to be Christians."

Mr. Robertson's claim is false and without foundation.  He needs to retract it, and he needs to apologize for his false statement.

It would be one thing to de-emphasize the involvement of the nineteenth century Church of Jesus Christ and of Brigham Young in plural marriage, or even to fail to mention it altogether, but it would be quite another thing overtly to declare that Brigham Young and the Church neither practiced nor taught plural marriage.  Mr. Robertson claims that the Church is doing just that.  That claim is false.  Mr. Robertson claims the Tribune article as support for his claim.  That claim, too, is false.  He should acknowledge the falsity of his claims, and he should do so in the same public forum in which he pronounced them.

BURNS:  "Your response to Jim was quite indignant and I am sure that you will have better luck discussing these matters if you approach people with a more gentle spirit.

PETERSON:  This is the message that I sent both to you and to Mr. Robertson:  "A friend called my attention to your claim that the Church of Jesus Christ is now denying that Brigham Young ever taught plural marriage and that the Church ever practiced or taught it.  Your claim is utterly, completely, false and baseless, as even a cursory bit of research would have shown you.  I will be checking back to see that you have removed it and apologized for your error."

I see nothing in that message that is untrue.  I see nothing in it that is intemperate or ungentle.  I see nothing in the course of action that it recommends to Mr. Robertson that is not entirely appropriate and, indeed, simply the ethical thing to do.  Mr. Robertson should correct his false statement, and he should apologize for having made it in the first place.

Neither my indignation nor lack thereof, nor the gentleness or viciousness of my spirit, nor (least of all!) "luck" has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not Mr. Robertson and Concerned Christians should behave in an ethical fashion.

Sincerely,
Daniel Peterson

Dear Daniel,

Thank you for your clear reply.  I feel a bit uncomfortable, as I am essentially answering for Jim not knowing fully what his thoughts are as I stated below.  However, I will give my opinion as I already have, in regard to what you stated.  As I myself have not personally read the article that we are discussing I cannot comment on it except by your words and what others have told me.  (Today I will be getting a copy faxed to me so that I can understand better what your perspective is.)

>"I would also point out that the people cited in the article are not at
>all representative of Latter-day Saint opinion in general, nor of
>informed or scholarly Latter-day Saint opinion in particular."

This comment is subjective and rely's [sic] solely on your opinion.   Jim may feel that the people interviewed are a fair representation of Mormons in general and are credible.

>"Jim Robertson's assertion that the Church is actually DENYING >those doctrines or historical facts.  I am sure that you can see the
>difference between, say, choosing not to speak about something in
>one's past and denying that that something ever occurred at all."

This area is gray for me as I have not read the article.  I understand the difference you are pointing out about denying something ever happened and choosing not to discuss it.  I would have to ask you why would someone choose to eliminate or "not discuss" a portion of history especially the things that could be considered embarrassing by some people?  The motive is certainly their to leave out information that could be hurtful.  In essence history is being re-written to the young people that are not aware of these facts because those facts were not mentioned in their training manuals.  Can you understand that point of view?

I think your demand for public apology and retraction of his opinion is rather demanding and unfounded.  That is the only reason I mentioned your were coming across as indignant about the whole thing.  Thanks again for your comments and when I am more informed about this article I will be happy to discuss this with you later.   Please feel free to comment on any other significant problems your find on our web site.

In Christ,
Mike Burns

Dear Mike:

Thank you for your polite response.  Permit me to reply to a few of your comments:

>>"I would also point out that the people cited in the article are not at
>>all representative of Latter-day Saint opinion in general, nor of
>> informed or scholarly Latter-day Saint opinion in particular."

> This comment is subjective and rely's [sic] solely on your opinion. > Jim may feel that the people interviewed are a fair representation of
> Mormons in general and are credible.

Of course it is subjective, and of course it relies solely on my opinion.  I don't see, frankly, how it could be otherwise.   But I am rather well placed to have such an opinion.  I teach at Brigham Young University, I am deeply involved in Mormon studies, and I count several of the most prominent Latter-day Saint historians among my personal friends.  For that matter, I am active in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a fact that, in and of itself, seems to give me something of an advantage over both you and Mr. Robertson when it comes to judging the current mood and attitude of communicant Latter-day Saints.  (I mean nothing hostile by that remark; it is merely the fact that I spend many hours each week in meetings and in classes with Latter-day Saints and interviewing Latter-day Saints.  I teach Latter-day Saints, my neighbors are Latter-day Saints, my family are, mostly, Latter-day Saints, my colleagues at work are Latter-day Saints, my best friends are all Latter-day Saints.  I have my finger on the pulse, as it were.)

I fully expected that you would dismiss my perception of general Latter-day Saint opinion as biased and subjective, but knew that there was nothing I could do about that short of conducting a major poll.  However, I might note that Valeen Avery, who is cited in the article, although a published historian on Mormon topics, would not be listed by anybody among the most prominent Latter-day Saint historians, and would probably be considered – certainly I consider her – to be on the "left wing" of LDS scholarship.

And Ron Priddis?  Well, what can I say?  Ron is an old friend of mine.  We served in the same mission, although (for reasons that may become evident) we have become rather estranged.  He is not a scholar, has no advanced degree, works for an openly dissident Mormon publishing house that consistently prints books hostile to central LDS (and Christian) positions, is disaffected from the Church and -- he told me so himself, so I am not spreading a rumor -- is involved in what we sometimes euphemistically call an Alternative Lifestyle.  Hardly representative, then, of mainstream Latter-day Saint opinion.  These are two of the primary sources for the Tribune article.  (In fact, in the version of the article that I just reviewed -- which I think is a bit shorter than the version the Tribune published -- they are the ONLY two sources critical of the manual.)

>I would have to ask you why would someone choose to eliminate
>or "not discuss" a portion of history especially the things that could
>be considered embarrassing by some people?   The motive
>is certainly their to leave out information that could be hurtful.

Yes, that is true.  But not quite relevant.  We could discuss this issue at length.  But the issue I raised is a different one, albeit related: Mr. Robertson's claim that the Church is denying that Brigham Young taught or practiced plural marriage, and denying that the nineteenth century Church itself taught or practiced plural marriage, is not true.  Simply that.

> In essence history is being
>re-written to the young people that are not aware of these facts
>because those facts were not mentioned in their training manuals. 
>Can you understand that point of view?

Yes, I can.  And it would be an interesting matter to discuss.   But it is not the question at issue here.

>I think your demand for public apology and retraction of his opinion
>is rather demanding and unfounded.

Why?  Newspapers and magazines frequently print retractions and apologies when they have made mistakes.  What is so horrible about Concerned Christians doing the same thing?

Cordially,
Dan Peterson

Dear Dan,

Thanks for keeping things pleasant.  Unfortunately we run into more LDS people that want to get nasty than truly dialogue.

Because you had not revealed who you were earlier I probably did not respond in quite the same manner I would have otherwise.  However, I do have a better appreciation of your perspective and thank your for sharing it with me from your vantage point.  My feeling when reading your replies was this, please don't be offended either.  He can't see the forest for the trees.  I still believe that you have a better understanding of this particular situation than I, as I have not read any of the material that we are discussing.....Laugh!

I commit to you that I will read it and judge for myself in light of the information you have provided me with in regard to the individuals interviewed.   As for the retraction you are requesting that will have to be addressed by Jim.   As I previously stated, you are asking for an apology based on opinion and not facts and that would be hard for him to accept.  Finally, Jim may have jumped ahead in his comments about this article and the omission of facts.  The line is very thin as to his perspective and yours really!  The bottom line is facts are being left out, WHY?  Jim's would assert that the LDS church is "re-writing history".   I would tend to agree with that.  That of course leaves more room for debate - and lots of it!

I thank you from the bottom of my heart for sharing with me and hope you will continue to visit/critique our web site!

Mike Burns

Dear Mike:

Again, a few comments on your most recent post:

BURNS:  "Thanks for keeping things pleasant.   Unfortunately we run into more LDS people that want to get nasty than truly dialogue."

PETERSON:  While I don't endorse nastiness, I think you have to expect that, people being people, many will react badly when they perceive you to be attacking that which they hold most sacred.  I myself find much anti-Mormon literature and many anti-Mormon videos and presentations deeply, deeply offensive and hateful.  And you should see some of the hate mail I receive.

BURNS:  "As for the retraction you are requesting that will have to be addressed by Jim.  As I previously stated, you are asking for an apology based on opinion and not facts and that would be hard for him to accept."

PETERSON:  I don't see anything here as a matter of opinion.   The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not deny that Brigham Young taught and practiced plural marriage.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not deny that it, itself, taught and practiced plural marriage in the nineteenth century.  Nowhere.  Period.  This is not a matter of opinion nor a subject for debate.  Mr. Robertson's assertion that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does in fact deny both of those propositions is, simply, unequivocally, false.  End of story.

BURNS:  "Finally, Jim may have jumped ahead in his comments about this article and the omission of facts."

PETERSON:  He jumped way over the line.

BURNS:  "The line is very thin as to his perspective and yours really!"

PETERSON:  I could not possibly disagree more.

BURNS:  "The bottom line is facts are being left out, WHY?"

PETERSON:  No.  Not at all.  The bottom line is that the article, with which (as I have said) I disagree, asserts that facts are being left out, but that Mr. Robertson asserts (supposedly on the basis of that article) that overt lies are being told.  There is a vast difference.  There is a huge and morally significant difference between my choosing not to mention the fact that I once played in a rock band, on the one hand, and, on the other, my answering "No" to a question about whether I once did so.  The second act would be properly described and stigmatized as a lie.  The first would not.

BURNS:  "Jim's would assert that the LDS church is 're-writing history'.  I would tend to agree with that.  That of course leaves more room for debate - and lots of it!"

PETERSON:  Mr. Robertson is certainly free to have any opinion that he chooses to hold about the manuals used for instruction in the Church of Jesus Christ.  He is even free, I suppose, to tell untruths about them.  But he is not morally justified in doing so, once he knows his assertions to be untruths.  The proper thing for him to do is to publicly acknowledge the falsity of his statement and to apologize for it.  That is what editors do daily in newspapers and magazines across the United States.  It is honorable and it is right.

That is the issue.  Period.  It is not a matter of opinion, nor a question of "luck."  It is not even a matter of whether or not I am nice.

However, on the matter of whether the Brigham Young manual represents a dishonest attempt to distort history, I supply two comments from friends of mine who have observed this correspondence.  I heartily agree with both.

The first is a professor of political philosophy at an institution in the Midwest:

"Perhaps your point should be stated this way.  Manuals are designed to provide members with practical wisdom, consistent with the principles of the restored Gospel, for guidance in regard to current concerns.  For that reason, it is not unreasonable or dishonest if the Church chooses not to emphasize polygamy or anything else.  As you said so well in your response, the Church does not deny these things.  They are simply inappropriate in the context of the manuals.  So really there is no controversy here, except for those who simply have nothing better to do than settle scores with an institution that has done them no harm."

The second comment comes from a Hebrew scholar, a colleague of mine here in Utah:

"Dan P., regarding your exchange with Mike Burns, there is another point to be made.  The priesthood/RS manual is NOT intended to be a history.   It is intended to show what Brigham Young taught on doctrines that the Church continues to emphasize.  Since the Church no longer authorizes the practice of plural marriage, one should not expect that this subject should be part of the doctrinal (not historical) discussion."

One could, of course, discuss these comments.  But they are not directly relevant to the issue at hand, which is that Mr. Robertson claims that the Church is explicitly, expressly, lying, that the Church is dishonestly saying that it and Brigham Young never taught or practiced plural marriage.  This is flatly untrue.   "Concerned Christians" should acknowledge the untruth of this claim, delete it from their web site, and apologize for misleading their audience.  That is the only honorable course open to you.  I'm sorry to be so "ungentle," but sometimes integrity can be rather fiercely demanding.

Best wishes,
Dan Peterson

I read your reply and must restate that I am wasting my time and yours defending a man that does not need defending.  He can choose to speak for himself on this matter and for us to banter over this, from my perspective, is a waste of my time.  I am basically sticking my nose where it doesn't belong.

I copied him on all of these emails and perhaps he will oblige you a response?  I would like to stay in contact with you as a resource should I have any questions that I feel would be best answered from an LDS source.  Would that be possible?  As a side note, I think anything can be said tactfully and without force regardless of the situation.  Any strong words only bring tension where it is not needed.

Sincerely,
Mike Burns

Dear Mike:

> I read your reply and must restate that I am wasting my time and
> yours defending a man that does not need defending.  He can
> choose to speak for himself on this matter and for us to banter
> over this, from my perspective, is a waste of my time. 
>I am basically sticking my nose where it doesn't belong.

Very possibly.  Friends who have had prior contact with Mr. Robertson also assure ME that I am wasting MY time seeking any kind of retraction or apology from him.  They tell me that it will never, never happen, no matter how flagrant the untruth.  And this one is mighty flagrant.

> I copied him on all of these emails and perhaps he will oblige
> you a response?

Perhaps.  I am waiting.

> I would like to stay in contact with you as a resource should I have
> any questions that I feel would be best answered from an LDS
> source.  Would that be possible?

Certainly.

> As a side note, I think anything can be said tactfully and without
> force regardless of the situation.  Any strong words only bring
> tension where it is not needed.

I agree.

Best wishes,
Dan Peterson

Dear Mike:

Dan Bachman has shared with me his latest message to you. Among the things that he said is the following:

"You are the web master for an organization, and apparent point man for its operator, which has intentionally misrepresented ('lied about' is the less politically correct term) my faith, castigated and impugned the integrity of my religious leaders, and then have the gall to whine about sarcasm and abuse, or me hassling you.   Astounding!"

I must say, with all due respect, that I entirely agree with his assessment of the situation.  It really amazes me, too, to see people who intentionally and systematically attack the faith of others grow suddenly sensitive when someone responds to their attack.  Mr. Robertson has publicly assaulted the honesty of the leaders of my church, men for whom I have the deepest feelings of respect.  He has done so falsely and baselessly.  If he is a decent man, he will publicly retract his accusation.  If "Concerned Christians" is an honorable and decent group, it will see to it that Mr. Robertson publicly retracts his false accusation.   This is not a merely personal matter for Mr. Robertson to deal with at his personal and private leisure; his false accusation appeared -- and, as of 10:06 AM Utah time, this morning, continues to appear -- on your web site.  It is a public matter.  It reflects on the integrity of "Concerned Christians" as an organization -- and, frankly, upon your integrity as someone affiliated with the group.

You have written to me of "dialogue" and of future questions that you would like to discuss.  I would be happy to discuss matters of faith and belief with you.  But I have to wonder whether anyone affiliated with an organization that purveys demonstrable, simple, obvious falsehoods (such as that the Church of Jesus Christ denies having ever taught or practiced plural marriage), an organization that declines to correct such falsehoods and refuses to apologize for them, can possibly be serious about real, honest dialogue.  Who, here, is really attempting to re-write and falsify history in order to further an agenda?

I'm sorry to sound harsh, but there seems no other way for me to view the truly astonishing reluctance of "Concerned Christians" to behave in an ethical manner.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel Peterson

I will be brief.  I have filtered Dan Bachman from my email as I do not believe a man that chooses words as he did is interested in making changes to our web site.  If indeed he is, we do not correspond with individuals that are not able to communicate in a polite manner.  It is our judgment if he is doing so.

I stated to you earlier, that I believe anything, in any situation can be said kindly with friendly intentions.  I understand that some situation are harder than others but honestly believe you are capable of complying if you genuinely are seeking to rectify problems.  Please keep this in mind in your correspondence.  The close to this letter does not seem to indicate that you will attempt to operate within the bounds of communication that I am requesting.  I don't think it is an unfair request and hope that we can keep a channel open for my future reference of your first hand knowledge.

Mike Burns
Concerned Christians

Dear Mike:

You write:

> I stated to you earlier, that I believe anything, in any situation can
> be said kindly with >friendly intentions.   I understand that some
> situation are harder than others but honestly believe you are
> capable of complying if you genuinely are seeking to rectify
> problems.  Please keep this in mind in your correspondence.
> The close to this letter does not seem to indicate that you will
> attempt to operate within the bounds of communication that
> I am requesting. 

I had written:

"I have to wonder whether anyone affiliated with an organization that purveys demonstrable, simple, obvious falsehoods (such as that the Church of Jesus Christ denies having ever taught or practiced plural marriage), an organization that declines to correct such falsehoods and refuses to apologize for them, can possibly be serious about real, honest dialogue.  Who, here, is really attempting to re-write and falsify history in order to further an agenda?

I'm sorry to sound harsh, but there seems no other way for me to view the truly astonishing reluctance of "Concerned Christians" to behave in an ethical manner."

I truly do not see any rosier way of understanding this.  The question is an open-and-shut one.  The Church of Jesus Christ indisputably has not done what Mr. Robertson has said it does.  Thus far, neither he nor the organization that publishes his accusation has been willing to correct his false statement, let alone to apologize for it.

I can understand that a period of time might elapse before action is taken.  But how much?  How long should we wait?  How long should I wait for the simple courtesy of a reply, any reply, from your boss?  Refusal to correct false accusations is reprehensible.  Simply that.  It is wrong.  And you should not become confused about the real issue here.  It is the person who knowingly makes false accusations who is unkind and betrays unfriendly intentions, not the person who reveals their falsity and asks that they be corrected.

Cordially,
Daniel Peterson

> I will be brief.  I have filtered Dan Bachman from my email as I do
> not believe a man that chooses words as he did is interested in
> making changes to our web site.   If indeed he is, we do not
> correspond with individuals that are not able to communicate in
> a polite manner.   It is our judgment if he is doing so.

The fact remains, Mike, that -- unless there is something really big here that I have missed -- it is Jim Robertson's behavior that is at issue, and not Dan Bachman's.  It is Jim Robertson who has made a very serious, and completely false, accusation against the leaders of my faith.  It is Jim Robertson who, thus far, apparently plans to persist in his charge.  Mr. Bachman's complaints about Mr. Robertson's false accusation seem to me precisely on the mark.

Moreover, I don't think that Mr. Bachman's communications to you have been so harsh or so abusive that they merit this kind of response.  (Roughly the equivalent, it seems to me, of plugging your ears with your fingers.)  I have not even found him particularly impolite.  But even if they had been less than fully charming, so what?  If Mr. Robertson's accusation is false, it certainly merits condemnation.  (If it is true, it merits defense.  But I have seen none.)

Is yours simply yet another of those anti-Mormon ministries that dish out accusations and insults -- including those, like the one under discussion, that are palpably and obviously untrue -- but cannot endure it when their victims reply?   If so (and it increasingly appears to be so), I am sorry, and I am very disappointed.

Daniel Peterson

Dan,

I wish you could relax about this.  My last letter to you simply was requesting some communication guidelines.  You know that I am not the one who you are looking for a response from, so why continue repeating yourself.  Jim is going to issue a statement for you as soon as possible.  That could mean within the week.  I apologize if his time schedule does not coincide with yours.  Can you just drop the issue with me and move on for the time being?

Thanks for understanding,

Mike

Dear Mr. Robertson:

Your web master, Mike Burns, has been struggling mightily to deal with criticisms of your false accusation against the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that they deny that Brigham Young taught or practiced plural marriage and deny that the Church itself ever taught or practiced plural marriage.  He has been as pleasant and upbeat as he could possibly be, under the rather difficult circumstances you have placed him in.  You should not leave him twisting in the wind any longer.  It is painful even for an outsider to watch.  Please, do the honorable thing.  Publicly retract your untrue statement.  Your integrity, and the integrity of "Concerned Christians," is on the line.

Dan, To move on to a totally new subject I would like to see what your response is to this person.   Daily, we get genuine questions from people that I try to answer with as much research and reference as possible.  Frankly, I am very tied up right now and I believe that you would enjoy answering this.  If you are interested in doing so, I want to let you know that I will be using your answer as reference material and put it into my own words.  I want to make sure that I go to the source as many people love to accuse me of not doing.  I will probably still do some independent research on this but think that you probably have greater resources to answer this question.

What evidence do the Mormons use to attest that ruins exist in South America that proved Jesus visited the continent?  What (which mormon archaeologist?) exactly is the evidence Mormons claim, and why is it wrong?  Has their so called evidence been disproven by reputable persons or biased persons against their religion?

signed Truth seeker.

This is in response to an article that I wrote.  I mentioned that Mormon scholars use some South American ruins as evidence that Jesus visited the Americas as told in the Book of Mormon.   I sincerely would appreciate your input and hope that you will feel honored with this task.  I also pray that this does not open another can of worms.....Grin.

Mike Burns
Concerned Christians

Dear Mike:

Here are some observations on the questions that you referred to me.   The questions are, unfortunately, not well thought-out.

What evidence do the Mormons use to attest that ruins exist in South America that proved Jesus visited the continent?

(a)  The overwhelming consensus of Latter-day Saint scholars is that the Book of Mormon story took place essentially in Mesoamerica or Central America -- i.e., in southern Mexico and Guatemala -- not in South America.

(b)  It isn't clear how "ruins," by themselves, could prove anything at all about whether Jesus visited the continent.   Ruins in Palestine do not "prove" that Jesus ever existed.

(c)  In fact, historical and archaeological "proof" is very rare.   There is "evidence," but not "proof," for most historical claims.  The most important claims of the Bible, for instance, are generally supported by evidence -- sometimes by strong evidence, and sometimes by relatively weak evidence -- but few of them, if any, can be considered "proven."   And for some, the evidence right now is actually against them.  (Which, to believers like myself, merely indicates that the evidence is either not all in or has not yet been properly understood, or that we do not correctly understand the biblical claim.)

What (which mormon archaeologist?) exactly is the evidence Mormons claim, and why is it wrong?

Well, of course, it isn't wrong.  To summarize the evidence that Latter-day Saints have produced for the claims of the Book of Mormon would be far, far beyond the scope of this e-mail posting.  But here is a reading list that I have drawn up, which would serve to give those interested a basic acquaintance with the state of the evidence:

Lynn M. Hilton and Hope Hilton.  In Search of Lehi's Trail.   Salt Lake City:  Deseret Book, 1976.

Richard Lloyd Anderson.  Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses.   Salt Lake City:  Deseret Book, 1981.

David A. Palmer.  In Search of Cumorah: New Evidences for the Book of Mormon from Ancient Mexico.  Bountiful, Utah: Horizon, 1981.

Noel B. Reynolds, ed.  Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins.  Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young   University, 1982.

Rhett S. James.  The Man Who Knew: The Early Years.  Cache Valley, Utah: Martin Harris Pageant Committee, 1983.

John L. Sorenson.  An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon.   Salt Lake City:  Deseret Book and FARMS, 1985.

Hugh W. Nibley.  Lehi in the Desert, The World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites.  Salt Lake City:  Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988.

Hugh W. Nibley.  An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 3rd ed.   Salt Lake City:  Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988.

Hugh W. Nibley. Since Cumorah, 2nd ed.  Salt Lake City:   Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988.

Hugh W. Nibley.  The Prophetic Book of Mormon.  Salt Lake City:   Deseret Book and FARMS, 1989.

FARMS Review of Books (formerly the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon), published first annually and then twice annually by FARMS since 1989.

Stephen D. Ricks and William J. Hamblin, eds.  Warfare in the Book of Mormon.   Salt Lake City:  Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990.

Paul R. Cheesman.  "External Evidences of the Book of Mormon."  In By Study and Also by Faith, ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks.  Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 2:73-90.

Eugene England. "A Second Witness for the Logos: The Book of Mormon and Contemporary Literary Criticism." In By Study and Also by Faith, 2:91-125.

John A. Tvedtnes.  "King Benjamin and the Feast of Tabernacles."  In By Study and Also by Faith, 2:197-237.

John W. Welch.  "The Melchizedek Material in Alma 13:13-19."  In By Study and Also by Faith, 2:238-272.

H. Curtis Wright.  "Ancient Burials of Metal Documents in Stone Boxes."   In By Study and Also by Faith, 2:273-334.

John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne, eds.  Rediscovering the Book of Mormon.   Salt Lake City:  Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991.

John W. Welch, ed.  Reexploring the Book of Mormon.  Salt Lake City:  Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992.

John L. Sorenson.  The Geography of Book of Mormon Events:  A Source Book.  Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992.

Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, published twice a year since 1992 by FARMS.

Warren P. Aston and Michaela Knoth Aston.  In the Footsteps of Lehi:   New Evidence for Lehi's Journey across Arabia to Bountiful.  Salt Lake City:  Deseret Book, 1994.

Stephen D. Ricks and John W. Welch, eds.  The Allegory of the Olive Tree:   The Olive, the Bible, and Jacob 5.  Salt Lake City:  Deseret Book and FARMS, 1994.

Noel B. Reynolds, ed.  Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins.  Provo: FARMS, 1997.

John L. Sorenson.  Nephite Culture and Society: Collected Papers.   Salt Lake City:  New Sage Books, 1997.

Richard Dilworth Rust.  Feasting on the Word: The Literary Testimony of the Book of Mormon.  Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1997.

Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch, eds.  Isaiah in the Book of Mormon.   Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1998.

John W. Welch and Stephen D. Ricks, eds.  King Benjamin's Speech: "That Ye May Learn Wisdom."  Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1998.

Davis Bitton, ed.  Mormons, Scripture, and the Ancient World: Studies in Honor of John L. Sorenson.  Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1998.

John L. Sorenson.  Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life.   Provo, Utah: Research Press, FARMS, 1998.

S. Kent Brown.  From Jerusalem to Zarahemla: Literary and Historical Studies of the Book of Mormon (Provo: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1998).

The place to go these days for the best scholarship on the Book of Mormon is the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), which can be reached from within the United States at 1-800-FARMS-15.   Anyone who is seriously interested in Book of Mormon studies should be on the FARMS mailing list.

Has their so called evidence been disproven by reputable persons or biased persons against their religion?

No, it hasn't.

I hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Dan Peterson

I would certainly agree that Mr. Burns has no responsibility to defend me.  I chose not to respond originally because I have a policy not to get into arguments and debates that go nowhere.  From the tone of your messages, it was obvious that neither of you were willing to be open to serious discussion regarding the truth or deception of Mormonism.   However, since you have chosen to aim your "darts" at Mr. Burns, I decided to respond this one time to you demand.

I have no intention of retracting any statements regarding the article on the new Priesthood manual.  If you have a bone to pick, I suggest you go to the source of the article, Vern Anderson of the Associated Press.

I have informed Mr. Burns that I would respond this time only, but that I had more important things to do in teaching and reaching people who are interested in learning about the deception of Mormonism.

In Christ,
Jim Robertson
Executive Director
Concerned Christians

Mr. Robertson:

You have responded in precisely the manner that several mutual acquaintances predicted:  You have refused to correct your error and you have stubbornly declined to tell the truth.  And you have grabbed at the fig leaf of my allegedly bad tone to provide supposedly justifying cover for your refusal.

I am sure that my friends will notify you when this very illuminating correspondence is placed on their web site.  I am, myself, working on an article in which, among other things, I plan to discuss Stephen Robinson's claim that there is an "LDS stereotype of Evangelicals as people who lie about us."   On behalf of "Concerned Christians," you have provided me a marvelous illustration of why that feeling exists, and I will use it in my forthcoming article.

Daniel Peterson

From: Daniel Peterson

Mike:
I am, needless to say, deeply disappointed in your boss.  And, since he apparently IS "Concerned Christians," my disappointment quite naturally extends to the organization as a whole.  I must honestly say, though, that two friends who have had extensive experience with Mr. Robertson in Arizona told me that he would do precisely as he has now done.  And they supplied me with prior instances of similar behavior.  I had decided not to bother you with those stories previously, not wanting to offend you, but I share them with you now (in the words of those who sent them to me).  I think you ought to know how your leader and your organization are regarded, and on what basis:

PRECEDENT ONE, from "C" [see responses to these issues]:

While we are on the subject of Jim Robertson.  I attended two of his lectures and recorded them.  My tapes are not real good, but I was able to record some major lies by Jim Robertson in those lectures.

Central Christian Church, Mesa, AZ  January 24th, 1994

Jim Robertson, Director of Concerned Christians of Mesa, Inc. was giving the lecture.  He made the following statements. 

1.  Joseph Smith joined the Methodist Church.  It's in the Pearl of Great Price.

2.  Joseph and Hyrum went over at night and burned the Nauvoo Expositor.

3.  A question was asked by someone in the congregation:  How can a Mormon accept these teachings?  Jim Robertson said: I was a Bishop, and I accepted it.

4.  The Mormon Church says that you are not officially married unless you are married in the Temple.

5.  If the Jews are not Mormons, they are considered Gentiles.

6.  The Mormon Church was to try to prove one lie in the film (Godmakers) and to sue us and make us stop showing the film.  They have not found one.

7.  There are only two paid actors in the movie (Godmakers).  All the rest are not actors.

Lecture on January 31, 1994 at same location.

More false statements made by Jim Robertson.

1.  Baptism is for membership in the Church, not for taking away sins.

2.  After Joseph was told not to join any church, 2 years later he joined the Methodist Church.

3.  Two thirds of the Book of Mormon came from View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith.

4.  Brigham Young had 87 wives, Joseph Smith had 46, I think it was.

5.  A Mormon can't drink hot chocolate, it is against the Word of Wisdom.

6.  In 1854, the name was changed to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

7.  There was a raid on Joseph City because of polygamy.  (It was actually a town called Short Creek, AZ)

8.  Polygamy is still okay today.  All you have to do is go to a different Temple to get married to another wife.....(a member of the congregation said:  The state of Arizona would not allow it.  Jim said:  You just go to a different state. 

As you can tell, he is a liar and a great distorter of truth.  I was not able to attend the next weeks lecture or the one previous to the 24th of January.  I heard other lies also, but these were the ones that I remembered the best and my recorder picked up the best. 

Jim Robertson was never a Bishop.  He was never a Branch President.  He did serve as a councilor to a Branch President.  A 16 year old Priest can serve as a councilor, so there is not much authority or keys that this man has held. 

I hope this info will help anyone that is concerned about the Concerned Christians of Mesa, Inc.

FOLLOW-UP TO PRECEDENT ONE, also from "C":

He told these lies in two lectures that I attended in 1994.  I took good notes and I tape recorded it.  I passed out these lies to John Thynne, on the directors list, and others at the Easter Pageant in Mesa.  John tried to defend Jim.  Just like Mike Burns did.  When I pin pointed him down to why Jim was lying, he said, I don't know, you will have to talk to Jim.  He told me that Jim would be there the next night.  I showed up.  John Thynne told me that Jim had a dinner appointment and had to miss.  He never has been to the Easter Pageant again that I am aware of.  I have attended every year since 1977.  (Not every single performance)

PRECEDENT TWO, from "S":

Several years ago I had a phone conversation with Jim (from Bob & Rosemary Brown's home) where I called Jim to talk about a statement he had made wherein he said that the "LDS owned Salt Lake Tribune" had reported such and such.  Of course because they reported it, it was suddenly fact.  When I pointed out firstly that what was said was untrue and secondly that the Salt Lake Tribune was owned by anti-Mormon Catholics he stammered and stuttered.  When I logically asked for a retraction of his comments, he hung up on me.  Nothing has changed.  Jim Robertson is as big a liar as he ever was.

He used to tell many interesting stories of how he left the Church using the name of a local Mormon who was the missionary that baptized him somewhere in Georgia or Alabama [Arkansas].  The role this Mormon (Mike) played in his leaving the Church was interesting (it's been so long I don't now remember all the details, but I have them on tape).  Unfortunately for Jim, I happened to be good friends with this Mormon and was able to talk to him about the details which Jim had once again lied about.  Mike had no reason to lie, it would serve no purpose.  On the other hand making up false stories served a definite purpose for Jim.

Lying is part and parcel of Jim Robertson's method.

RESP0NSE FROM A FRIEND:

<< I have informed Mr. Burns that I would respond this time only, but that I had more important things to do in teaching and reaching people who are interested in learning about the deception of Mormonism. >> [Mr. Robertson]

READ:  I have an agenda.  I have no interest in the truth.  Don't bother me with the facts.  I'm too busy "Lying for Jesus."

Absolutely incredible.  <shaking head in disbelief>

RESP0NSE FROM ANOTHER FRIEND:

Well once again Mr. Robertson has come through in his true fashion.  I suspect that this will pretty much conclude the correspondence with him and it can now be gotten ready for the Internet.

RESPONSE FROM DAN BACHMAN:

Dan [P.], I'm thinking that since you still have the ear of Mike Burns it would be well to send him a copy of Jim Robertson's last message, and urge him to discontinue as a functionary of a man who misinterprets a newspaper article then refuses to defend that misinterpretation.  I believe during our correspondence with him, even Mike recognized this as a problem.  Unless he is totally corrupt too, which I doubt, his conscience must prick him at being the lackey of such a "end justifies the means" type of a guy.

I strongly concur with Mr. Bachman.  I hope that you can recognize the problematic character of Mr. Robertson's behavior in this case -- to say nothing of the others, sketched above -- and that you will act in an appropriate and, indeed, Christian manner regarding it.  That is, naturally, entirely up to you.   But I will not be the only one watching to see how YOU respond, now that Mr. Robertson has.  I cannot understand how a self-proclaimed Christian can rationalize misrepresenting the beliefs of others and bearing false testimony against them.  I do not see what place such actions have in Christian witness, even against the villainous Latter-day Saints.

Cordially,
Daniel Peterson

Craig Ray has been asking these questions regarding Jim Robertson for many years now.  I would tend to agree with Jim's comment, "Someday they will stop attacking the messenger and start dealing with the message."  You no longer have "Mike Burns Ear" and have been added to my filtered e-mail list, as you have allied yourself with Craig.  You have wasted much effort in writing such a long attack that completely missed the mark.
Good-bye.