Peterson Misleading Again

[_antishock8]

Well, I'm going to put this theory to a test. I'm going to address a letter to Michael Watson, via Church HQ, and request a copy of the "2nd Watson Letter". I guess we'll see if they respond to a nobody or not.

[_beastie]

Well, I'm going to put this theory to a test. I'm going to address a letter to Michael Watson, via Church HQ, and request a copy of the "2nd Watson Letter". I guess we'll see if they respond to a nobody or not.

Please keep us informed. You'll probably be told to refer your questions to your bishop.

[_antishock8]

Ok. Letter is in the mail.

[_harmony]

I asked so you could verify your claim. It was an opportunity for you, not an attack against you. That you took it as an attack on your honesty and your integrity is very strange.

Oh come on. Several people here have suggested over the years and in recent days that the letter may never have actually existed.

"Several people" is not me. You don't like to be stereotyped; why would you then turn around and do the same thing to someone else?

Since I would be right at the heart of the conspiracy to foist a bogus letter on the public as having come from the Office of the First Presidency, it's scarcely "strange" that I would view such suggestions as questioning my honesty and integrity.

I know virtually nothing about letter #1 or letter #2. The whole Hill Cumorah thing doesn't interest me, so whether either or both are bogus makes little difference to me. I was just trying to shut up your critics. Instead, you took offense when none was intended.

I don't know you, have never met you, have never conversed with you,

Yet you routinely announce that I don't live my religion, etc. You and harsh personal judgments of strangers are well acquainted with each other.

Well, you don't. Neither do I. No one does. I don't consider that harsh or judgmental. That's reality. I point it out regularly to several of our more vocal TBMs here. When you turn the other cheek, I'll be the first to praise you for it. When you give people the benefit of the doubt, I'll be the first to notice and publically point it out. When you start valuing and validating all of God's children, I'll no doubt make a big sign and have Shades pin it to the top of this bulletin board.

yet you expect me to take your word for something that you alledge. Why should I?

Because, absent strong reason to do otherwise, it's the reasonable basis and default setting for normal civil conversation.

Then why don't you use it yourself? You expect it from me, yet you don't grant it to me (or almost anyone else here). If taking someone's word for something is the "reasonable" default setting for normal civil conversation, I'll be expecting to see more of that from you when you converse here. Thanks.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Ray's suggestion was that you try to obtain a copy.

Golly. Thanks, beastie. I hadn't noticed. The bolding really helped.

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.

That might or might not be true.

For one thing, they could simply reply that this was a private correspondence.

They could, yes. Just as they could do so were one to try to check up on the letter from F. Michael Watson to "Bishop Brooks."

But if you,

Just as they could do if I were to ask to see a copy of a letter from F. Michael Watson to William J. Hamblin.

or preferably Hamblin, tried to obtain a copy, I'm sure they would accommodate you.

They might. If they still have a copy, which they might or might not.

Personally, I believe that the letter existed.

That's a relief.

But I think it's a fair request that the letter be produced.

There's nothing "unfair" about it. I've never said that requesting it was somehow "unfair." I've said that it's unreasonable immediately to suggest forgery simply because somebody can't produce a fifteen-year-old letter for inspection.

The simple fact is that Professor Hamblin claims to have mislaid the letter, and that I have no reason to doubt him. It may or may not still exist. My bet is that it doesn't. Professor Hamblin seems quite unconcerned by the fact that a few very hostile critics on this board. (If there are others out there somewhere else who also view a FARMS conspiracy to manufacture a bogus letter from the Office of the First Presidency as a very likely possibility, I haven't heard of them.) And he evidently hasn't thought it worth his time to bestir himself or to pester the Office of the First Presidency in order to allay the suspicions of maybe half a dozen people on an obscure message board who -- as nobody here can realistically doubt -- would simply move immediately on to the next insinuation of dishonesty and incompetence even if he were able to prove the present accusation false. I can't really blame him.

If you want Professor Hamblin to pursue this matter, you should write to him and try to persuade him or, failing that, to terrify him into contacting the Office of the First Presidency.

Why do you think the Tanners feel compelled to produce photocopies of things like this?

Because they're trying to defend themselves against potential attack -- protesting a bit too much, in my view, since nobody that I know has ever accused them of actually forging evidence -- and also because they favor a manner of presentation (rather like that of Robert and Rosemary Brown on the other side) that often includes photocopies of documents.

By contrast, like the standard academic journals and books that form the background of its editors and publishers and the large majority of its writers, the presentation-style or format of the FARMS Review virtually never features photocopies of documents. (If we've ever included such a photocopy, I can't remember it off hand.) Moreover, in the world in which the Review's editors, publishers, and writers live, while books and articles cite correspondence from time to time, the presumption is always that the cited correspondence actually exists and has been accurately transcribed. Accusations of gross transcription errors or deliberate falsification are extremely rare; accusations of deliberate wholesale forgery are virtually unknown, and the career of any scholar who would do such a thing would come to an immediate, catastrophic, and humiiating end.

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.

Actually, I'm quite confident that "we" -- we're not a monolithic organization under a single autocratic leader, you know -- would not. We've never, for example, thought to deny the authenticity of Watson letter #1. I have no doubt whatsoever that it's authentic, even though forging it wouldn't have been especially difficult. In fact, although the Tanners routinely cite documents that are not available for public inspection, I can't recall a single instance in which anybody from FARMS (the only "apologetic" organization for which I have ever had any significant responsibility) has ever accused them of flatly inventing such a document.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't know you, have never met you, have never conversed with you,

Yet you routinely announce that I don't live my religion, etc. You and harsh personal judgments of strangers are well acquainted with each other.

Well, you don't.

LOL.

Neither do I. No one does. I don't consider that harsh or judgmental. That's reality.

You're equivocating here. You make specific accusations against me. You don't simply say, when you're condemning me, "We're all human."

When you turn the other cheek, I'll be the first to praise you for it.

And we're immediately back to the serenely and complacently judgmental real harmony.

When you give people the benefit of the doubt, I'll be the first to notice and publically point it out.

As I do, for example, with the Tanners and their Watson letter #1?

When you start valuing and validating all of God's children

As if you had even the slightest standing to know whether I do that or not.

yet you expect me to take your word for something that you alledge. Why should I?

Because, absent strong reason to do otherwise, it's the reasonable basis and default setting for normal civil conversation.

Then why don't you use it yourself? You expect it from me, yet you don't grant it to me (or almost anyone else here). If taking someone's word for something is the "reasonable" default setting for normal civil conversation, I'll be expecting to see more of that from you when you converse here.

So I've been accusing everybody here of lying all the time, and of forging things?

[_Mister Scratch]

For my money, I am less concerned about seeing the 2nd Watson Letter. Rather, I am much more interested in Bill Hamblin's Letter. As I noted in the other thread, this letter cannot look good for apologists, and they have pretty obvious motivations for wanting to bury it and keep it hidden away from critics. This about this:

1. The letter from Hamblin came three years after the first Watson Letter. If apologists thought the Tanner's reproduction of it was no biggie, then why not just let it fade from view? Instead, they were obviously boiling with rage over it for some time.
2. Why did Michael Watson take Bill Hamblin's letter seriously? Now, this is very important. Think about it. What would Bill Hamblin have said in order to get the Secretary to the First Presidency to actually use up his no doubt very busy schedule in order to write this letter? Surely, Brother Watson had to have felt that the letter was important enough to merit his taking the time to write it.
3. To that end, I believe that Bill Hamblin had to have either:
A) Lectured Watson about doctrine, telling the FP secretary that his views are "out of line," as it were.
B) Ordered/requested Watson to issue a retraction. If this is true, then I think we have to assume that Hamblin "scared" Watson somehow. That is, Hamblin would have had to convince Watson that this issue was serious enough to merit a retraction. How, I wonder, did Hamblin characterize this "seriousness"?

I really think that Hamblin *must* have requested the retraction. I have a hard time believe that Michael Watson---no doubt a very busy man---would have just written the letter out of the blue, just for the hell of it, in order to make what is really a very minor and stupid doctrinal clarification.

The bottomline here is that I smell something like a cover-up. DCP won't tell us what he recalls about Hamblin's letter, and for good reason: it is embarrassing, and it would show the apologists in a negative light. Further, each time I have asked The Good Professor about the Hamblin letter, he has dodged or said, "Get a life."

Gee.... I wonder why?

[_harmony]

Neither do I. No one does. I don't consider that harsh or judgmental. That's reality.

You're equivocating here. You make specific accusations against me. You don't simply say, when you're condemning me, "We're all human."

I make the same statement against Loran, the Crock, and anyone else who sets themselves up as a judge in Isreal and then doesn't live what they expect others to live. You are not alone, Daniel. Did you think you were? The vast majority of time, I don't live my religion, but since I'm not a bishop, my stewardship and responsibility is less. Many here can give long lists of examples of when I was snarky or ornery, for which I've had to apologize. That others exhibit the same behavior doesn't excuse you, though. Or the rest of the us.

When you turn the other cheek, I'll be the first to praise you for it.

And we're immediately back to the serenely and complacently judgmental real harmony.

Perhaps you'll notice me turning the other cheek to this insult. Perhaps not.

When you give people the benefit of the doubt, I'll be the first to notice and publically point it out.

As I do, for example, with the Tanners and their Watson letter #1?

I was referring to Scratch, but perhaps that's beyond a mere bishop. Perhaps that kind of forgiveness requires serenity or harmony that many priesthood leaders simply don't have? I've seen Jason forgive Loran after one of Loran's tirades, but then, maybe that's because Jason is a gem of a man who isn't influenced by living within the Zion Curtain.

When you start valuing and validating all of God's children

As if you had even the slightest standing to know whether I do that or not.

You value me? You validate Scratch or Rollo? We will all be surprised to hear it, if that is true.

Then why don't you use it yourself? You expect it from me, yet you don't grant it to me (or almost anyone else here). If taking someone's word for something is the "reasonable" default setting for normal civil conversation, I'll be expecting to see more of that from you when you converse here.

So I've been accusing everybody here of lying all the time, and of forging things?

Not everybody and not all the time, just as not everyone accuses you of lying all the time (or forging things). Just those with whom you have a history. I was offering you an olive branch and you chose to take offense. You still choose to take offense, even after I've explained my purpose and that I have no dog in this fight. You accused me falsely. I am not your enemy, Daniel. I do my best to defend you, even when I think you're wrong, but sometimes you make it very difficult.

edited to fix quote.

[Guest]

I make the same statement against Loran, the Crock, and anyone else who sets themselves up as a judge in Isreal and then doesn't live what they expect others to live.

I didn't "set myself up as a judge in Israel." I was called to be a bishop. I didn't call myself to the job, and I didn't want it.

Nor do I set myself up to judge the moral lives or characters of others here or elsewhere in the ether. I know nothing about how they live their daily lives, and have absolutely nothing to say on the matter.

Likewise, you know nothing whatever about my daily life, and you're in no position whatsoever to pronounce judgment on whether I do or don't "live what [I] expect others to live."

Isn't this painfully obvious?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I am much more interested in Bill Hamblin's Letter. As I noted in the other thread, this letter cannot look good for apologists,

You don't even need to know what was in it to find it damning and A Watershed Moment in the History of Mopologetics.

That's pretty funny.

and they have pretty obvious motivations for wanting to bury it and keep it hidden away from critics.

How have "we" buried it and hidden it from "critics"? (You're the only critic, so far as I can recall, who's ever demanded to see it.)

I simply don't care to reminisce with you about it. I think I saw it once, somewhat more than fifteen years ago. It wasn't a big deal. Nothing memorable about it. My memory of it is pretty hazy. And you've already decided that it's bound to make us all look bad "in some way," so anything I say can only add fuel to the flames of a fire that you yourself have already lit -- which would lead to an interminable conversation about . . . what, exactly? My vague memories (which you'll constantly demand that I specify and expand as you look for something self-contradictory or damning) and your predetermined negative conclusions?

Gee. How tempting.

The letter from Hamblin came three years after the first Watson Letter. If apologists thought the Tanner's reproduction of it was no biggie, then why not just let it fade from view?

Pal Joey condemns the Hambln article because it failed to mention Watson letter #1. You condemn the Hamblin article (and all apologists) because it signals some sort of alleged obsession with Watson letter #1.

Damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

The damnation is, as always with you, foreordained.

Instead, they were obviously boiling with rage over it for some time.

LOL. "Boiling with rage"?

Why did Michael Watson take Bill Hamblin's letter seriously? Now, this is very important.

Who knows? Ask Michael Watson.

Think about it. What would Bill Hamblin have said in order to get the Secretary to the First Presidency to actually use up his no doubt very busy schedule in order to write this letter?

Maybe it was the line about knowing the schedules and routes to school of Brother Watson's children?

Surely, Brother Watson had to have felt that the letter was important enough to merit his taking the time to write it.

That seems tautologically obvious.

To that end, I believe that Bill Hamblin had to have either:
A) Lectured Watson about doctrine, telling the FP secretary that his views are "out of line," as it were.

LOL. I think "lecturing" the secretary to the First Presidency on doctrine would require a degree of chutzpah beyond even my friend Bill Hamblin's reach.

B) Ordered/requested Watson to issue a retraction.

I like the notion that Professor Hamblin ordered Michael Watson to issue a retraction.

Let's go with order.

Plainly, this is a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics.

If this is true, then I think we have to assume that Hamblin "scared" Watson somehow.

I suspect that the line about Brother Watson's children must have had precisely that effect.

That is, Hamblin would have had to convince Watson that this issue was serious enough to merit a retraction. How, I wonder, did Hamblin characterize this "seriousness"?

If I recall correctly, he signed the letter in blood.

But it wasn't his blood.

Oh yeah. Almost forgot. He also enclosed a severed ear.

I really think that Hamblin *must* have requested the retraction.

I think we agreed -- didn't we? -- that he ordered it.

I have a hard time believe that Michael Watson---no doubt a very busy man---would have just written the letter out of the blue, just for the hell of it, in order to make what is really a very minor and stupid doctrinal clarification.

That seems pretty obvious.

The bottomline here is that I smell something like a cover-up.

Why of course you do. There is, as you've said, "no way" that this matter isn't going to make all "apologists" look bad "in some way."

DCP won't tell us what he recalls about Hamblin's letter, and for good reason: it is embarrassing, and it would show the apologists in a negative light.

See?

There's no need for me to supply you with material. Absent actual data, you'll simply manufacture it, ex nihilo.

Further, each time I have asked The Good Professor about the Hamblin letter, he has dodged or said, "Get a life."

Gee.... I wonder why?

Because you need to get a life.

You say that members of your family and your former ward don't like you. Has it ever occurred to you that getting a life might help to rebuild some of those relationships?