Peterson Misleading Again

[_cksalmon]

Hi beastie--

Just for clarification:

Oh, and please point out where my frank summary of Christianity was inaccurate...

You Christians think God's or the universe's sense of justice couldn't be sated unless (1) he agreed to allow his son to be killed? (2) Gotta have that blood (or suffering), that blood (or suffering) makes it all right.

This is a factually correct statement. (3) You do not believe that God's sense of justice (or the universe, if you're one of those Mormons who believe the demands of justice exist external to god) could be sated unless Jesus was killed. It is telling that a simple summary of your beliefs, to you, sounds hostile and angry.

(1) I can only speak for traditional Christianity here, of course, but no traditional Christian would hold that God "agreed to allow his son to be killed." Far from being externally motivated into agreement, Jesus' death was eternally planned by God.

(2) With reference to "blood," Christians see the Old Testament sacrifices as typologizing or prefiguring Jesus' death. Thus, Jesus' death was a fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrificial system rather than being simply more of the same sort of bloodletting.

(3) That's accurate.

A 10? Perhaps. But, there it is.

Best.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Wrongful post.

Deleted by author.

I was wrong! I made a mistake!

[_antishock8]

Wrongful post.

Deleted by author.

I was wrong! I made a mistake!

Wow. Respect level going up. Who says puppy dogs and rainbows aren't real?

[_Ray A]

What is unreasonable, in my view, is suspecting that the source checker, Dr. Hamblin, Dr. Ricks, and I -- and perhaps some others -- may be lying about its content or may even have forged it if we can't produce it for your inspection.

Things get lost. It happens. There's nothing intrinsically impossible or even improbable about Professor Hamblin's claim that he had a copy of the letter a bit more than a decade and a half ago but, in the interim, has mislaid it.

Dan, like you I don't read every reply on every thread, and I may have missed your response to this question: Would it be very difficult to obtain a copy of the 2nd Watson letter from the secretary to the First Presidency? Yeah, I know they're busy. Yeah, I know they might feel it's trivial. But you've mentioned that you know many of the apostles on a personal basis, and consider some your friends. Note: I don't doubt anything you've said, and even claiming something like the existence of the 1993 letter, if it didn't exist, would put you and Bill Hamblin at serious credibility risk. But imagine how much bandwidth could be saved here if you obtained an original copy and reproduced it (with Watson's signature), as the Tanners did with the original Watson letter. I know, you could still be charged with forgery, but an original copy, with you stating that this is verily so, would be good enough for many. It should be, for those who accept that the Tanner's reproduction is genuine, or there are very obvious double standards abroad.

Other than that, I suggest that Bill consider using his Seerstone if it comes to the worst. :)

[_beastie]

(1) I can only speak for traditional Christianity here, of course, but no traditional Christian would hold that God "agreed to allow his son to be killed." Far from being externally motivated into agreement, Jesus' death was eternally planned by God.

(2) With reference to "blood," Christians see the Old Testament sacrifices as typologizing or prefiguring Jesus' death. Thus, Jesus' death was a fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrificial system rather than being simply more of the same sort of bloodletting.

(3) That's accurate.

A 10? Perhaps. But, there it is.

Best.

Thanks for the honest feedback. I was a Christian for many, many years (I include my LDS years, because LDS are Christian, albeit off the mainstream, in my opinion) so I already knew my summary was accurate - as was my summary of translating disappearing gold plates with a peep stone.

I guess I'm just too uppity for Dan's taste. ;)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Would it be very difficult to obtain a copy of the 2nd Watson letter from the secretary to the First Presidency? Yeah, I know they're busy. Yeah, I know they might feel it's trivial. But you've mentioned that you know many of the apostles on a personal basis, and consider some your friends. Note: I don't doubt anything you've said, and even claiming something like the existence of the 1993 letter, if it didn't exist, would put you and Bill Hamblin at serious credibility risk. But imagine how much bandwidth could be saved here if you obtained an original copy and reproduced it (with Watson's signature), as the Tanners did with the original Watson letter. I know, you could still be charged with forgery, but an original copy, with you stating that this is verily so, would be good enough for many. It should be, for those who accept that the Tanner's reproduction is genuine, or there are very obvious double standards abroad.

Other than that, I suggest that Bill consider using his Seerstone if it comes to the worst. :)

I don't know whether they would still have a copy or not. (It's certainly possible.) I've repeatedly encouraged Scratch and Rollo and the one or two others -- I suppose Pal Joey is now among them -- who seem to be exercised by this to write to the Office of the First Presidency and ask. Truthfully, since I know of only maybe half a dozen people (if that) who seem seriously to entertain the thought that Bill and Shirley and I forged the letter, I've never thought the matter important enough to trouble anyone up in Salt Lake City about it myself.

The situation is slightly complicated right now by the fact that Michael Watson has just been called as a General Authority, and actually assumed his new duties on or about 1 July -- which, I presume, means that he is no longer secretary to the First Presidency.

[_Trevor]

Truthfully, since I know of only maybe half a dozen people (if that) who seem seriously to entertain the thought that Bill and Shirley and I forged the letter, I've never thought the matter important enough to trouble anyone up in Salt Lake City about it myself.

The situation is slightly complicated right now by the fact that Michael Watson has just been called as a General Authority, and actually assumed his new duties on or about 1 July -- which, I presume, means that he is no longer secretary to the First Presidency.

Lies and exaggerations. Truly shameful. How does this man live with himself? I am outraged. How did he work it out so that Michael Watson could be called a GA, just so that he could appear to be unavailable to provide a letter he never received and a copy of a letter he never sent. Surely you can't imagine that only half a dozen people don't think you are a master con artist by now?!?!?!?!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Lies and exaggerations. Truly shameful. How does this man live with himself? I am outraged. How did he work it out so that Michael Watson could be called a GA, just so that he could appear to be unavailable to provide a letter he never received and a copy of a letter he never sent. Surely you can't imagine that only half a dozen people don't think you are a master con artist by now?!?!?!?!

Scratch is now going to demand to know the contents of the letter that I sent to President Monson that compelled him to call Michael Watson as a General Authority.

Heheheh. He'll never get it.

But, just to tantalize him: It contained three outright threats, two whines, one hint at blackmail, and seven appeals to the vast profits that we share by being principal figures in the scam.

[_Trevor]

Scratch is now going to demand to know the contents of the letter that I sent to President Monson that compelled him to call Michael Watson as a General Authority.

Heheheh. He'll never get it.

But, just to tantalize him: It contained three outright threats, two whines, one hint at blackmail, and seven appeals to the vast profits that we share by being principal figures in the scam.

Well, at least he has figured out that you are the real power behind the Morgite throne. You have to give him his due!

[_beastie]

I don't know whether they would still have a copy or not. (It's certainly possible.) I've repeatedly encouraged Scratch and Rollo and the one or two others -- I suppose Pal Joey is now among them -- who seem to be exercised by this to write to the Office of the First Presidency and ask. Truthfully, since I know of only maybe half a dozen people (if that) who seem seriously to entertain the thought that Bill and Shirley and I forged the letter, I've never thought the matter important enough to trouble anyone up in Salt Lake City about it myself.

The situation is slightly complicated right now by the fact that Michael Watson has just been called as a General Authority, and actually assumed his new duties on or about 1 July -- which, I presume, means that he is no longer secretary to the First Presidency.

Ray's suggestion was that you try to obtain a copy. You know as well as I, and every other person on this board, that the church isn't going to respond to a request by a nobody. For one thing, they could simply reply that this was a private correspondence. But if you, or preferably Hamblin, tried to obtain a copy, I'm sure they would accommodate you.

Personally, I believe that the letter existed. But I think it's a fair request that the letter be produced. Why do you think the Tanners feel compelled to produce photocopies of things like this? If they were making a claim about Michael Watson writing a letter that, instead, reaffirmed Hill Cumorah in NY and could never produce a copy, you apologists would be making as big a deal about it as scratch currently is.