2nd Watson Letter just found!'

[_Doctor Scratch]

Greg Smith has posted an update:

To answer a few of the questions in bulk:

* as I understand it, Hamblin's letter did not provoke the response being written. From what I was told, some anti-Mormons were making great hay out of the letter somewhere, some local leader wrote SLC to ask if this letter was indeed church doctrine (him having never heard this), and Watson indicated that the First Presidency wished to clarify his original letter. So, I _think_ Hamblin just received a copy of a letter that had already been sent.

* no, I do not have a copy of the Hamblin query letter; as I said, I don't think it impacted the letter's text since that had been written in response to a different issue.

* Sorenson was at FARMS (now the Maxwell Institute). Copies were made of the letter to Hamblin and circulated among a few FARMS folk when it came over the wire. Sorenson's interest in Book of Mormon geography made him something who obviously would have an interest in such things. Sorenson just handed his files over en masse when the MI moved to different digs on BYU, and they hadn't been sorted through until recently, upon which the letter turned up.

* Sorenson was one of the first serious treatments of Book of Mormon geo based on the text. If you haven't read him (start with Mormon's Map, then Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon) then you are about 30 years behind the times in LDS apologetics and scholarly discussion about such matters. Much of his work is available at the MI site (http://mi.byu.edu).

Don't hold me to all this until I see the letter, but I'm about 95% sure I have the story straight.

GLS

I was going to wait until he posted the letter to FAIR, but I cannot help but weigh in on this. Given what he's said here---and notwithstanding his final "Don't hold me to all this" caveat---this is a powderkeg. For starters, this is the first time I think any of us has heard the story that the letter just sort of "appeared" in response to anti-Mormon criticism. In fact, I seem to recall being told repeatedly by the apologists that the Brethren/FP are virtually oblivious to what the antis are up to. (DCP has said something to that effect many, many times.) Secondly, I am fairly certain that Prof. Peterson has always maintained that Hamblin's copy was the *only* one in existence. I don't know how this will play out, but as of right now, the apologists don't have their stories straight.

[_Joey]

There is some serious BS and/or lying going on here. I spent weeks in debate with both Peterson and Hamblin back in 2005 at the Fair board on this issue. They both said the the letter was sent to Hamblin at his request.

I think this Greg Smith is just digging a whole for someone here! Can't wait to see the good doctor get involved in this one again!!!

[_harmony]

There is some serious BS and/or lying going on here. I spent weeks in debate with both Peterson and Hamblin back in 2005 at the Fair board on this issue. They both said the the letter was sent to Hamblin at his request.

I think this Greg Smith is just digging a whole for someone here! Can't wait to see the good doctor get involved in this one again!!!

Maybe he's a Have Backhoe, Will Travel kinda guy?

[_zzyzx]

"For those who, for whatever reason -- laziness, intellectual neglect, intransigence, invincible ignorance, whatever"

Are you sure you aren't an active Mormon? With a response like this I would expect you to be a Stake High Counselor in our Stake... or somewhere in Utah.

Some of us work. The controversies that you look at are not generally discussed or even known to many in the wards and stakes as they just... are... not... taught. FAIR and FARMS aren't mentioned at all in our ward classes and meetings. I asked ten members picked at random after a meeting last evening what FAIR and FARMS were. None had an answer that referred to Church stuff at all.

Many who don't visit pages such as this know little of controversy. They are as I and others have been for some time, wondering about things that don't add up but looking in 'official' church publications and histories to try and find answers. It is only lately that I found this and some other sites. Still can't tell real ones from parody without a lot of looking and asking. Living in a town where a visit to the Public Library and asking for or checking out certain LDS/Anti or pro books somehow gets noticed by Bishops and Stake officers makes for repression.

Spending much time with work pursuits takes the bulk of my time and being a clerk takes the bulk of Church time. Asking questions in meetings causes problems. This especially if they are actually questions instead of parroting the lesson and its pre-planned canned questions.

So, I do visit here since discovering it. Discussion of topics I have questions on is interesting. It has seemed to be better than Google searches with 1-4 million pages to visit for information. Maybe that is a mistake and asking and reading here a waste of time?

[_malkie]

Greg Smith has posted an update:

To answer a few of the questions in bulk:

* as I understand it, Hamblin's letter did not provoke the response being written. From what I was told, some anti-Mormons were making great hay out of the letter somewhere, some local leader wrote SLC to ask if this letter was indeed church doctrine (him having never heard this), and Watson indicated that the First Presidency wished to clarify his original letter. So, I _think_ Hamblin just received a copy of a letter that had already been sent.

* no, I do not have a copy of the Hamblin query letter; as I said, I don't think it impacted the letter's text since that had been written in response to a different issue.

* Sorenson was at FARMS (now the Maxwell Institute). Copies were made of the letter to Hamblin and circulated among a few FARMS folk when it came over the wire. Sorenson's interest in Book of Mormon geography made him something who obviously would have an interest in such things. Sorenson just handed his files over en masse when the MI moved to different digs on BYU, and they hadn't been sorted through until recently, upon which the letter turned up.

* Sorenson was one of the first serious treatments of Book of Mormon geo based on the text. If you haven't read him (start with Mormon's Map, then Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon) then you are about 30 years behind the times in LDS apologetics and scholarly discussion about such matters. Much of his work is available at the MI site (http://mi.byu.edu).

Don't hold me to all this until I see the letter, but I'm about 95% sure I have the story straight.

GLS

I was going to wait until he posted the letter to FAIR, but I cannot help but weigh in on this. Given what he's said here---and notwithstanding his final "Don't hold me to all this" caveat---this is a powderkeg. For starters, this is the first time I think any of us has heard the story that the letter just sort of "appeared" in response to anti-Mormon criticism. In fact, I seem to recall being told repeatedly by the apologists that the Brethren/FP are virtually oblivious to what the antis are up to. (DCP has said something to that effect many, many times.) Secondly, I am fairly certain that Prof. Peterson has always maintained that Hamblin's copy was the *only* one in existence. I don't know how this will play out, but as of right now, the apologists don't have their stories straight.

Am I missing something here? The para I bolded suggests to me that Sorensen:
- never heard of the controversy over the 2nd letter, or
- he had heard, but didn't think that the letter could possibly be in the files that he handed over
and so didn't get involved in the argument/didn't think that he had anything significant to add to the discussion
Or is it just that I missed the part where Sorensen said that he had had the 2nd letter and could no longer find it?

[_harmony]

Maybe that is a mistake and asking and reading here a waste of time?

NEVER! (Shades! Where's my grinning smilie?)

[_Ray A]

I think this Greg Smith is just digging a whole for someone here! Can't wait to see the good doctor get involved in this one again!!!

If you'll excuse my French, Greg Smith is an asshole apologist. DCP loves to build up his credentials (and everyone else's in favour of him and his Three Stooges verson of Book of Mormon "historicity"). Smith is what I would call the epitome of apologetic flatulence. All foul smell and no substance.

[_Ray A]

Don't be surprised if this "copy" is totally manufactured. Nothing is beyond them.

[_harmony]

Don't be surprised if this "copy" is totally manufactured. Nothing is beyond them.

It's a possibility. And not beyond historical precedent.

[_Ray A]

The first Watson letter:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Office of the First Presidency Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

October 16, 1990

Bishop Darrel L. Brooks Moore Ward Oklahoma City Oklahoma South Stake 1000 Windemere Moore, OK 73160

Dear Bishop Brooks:

I have been asked to forward to you for acknowledgment and handling the enclosed copy of a letter to President Gordon B. Hinckley from Ronnie Sparks of your ward. Brother Sparks inquired about the location of the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon, where the last battle between the Nephites and Lamanites took place.

The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.

The Brethren appreciate your assistance in responding to this inquiry, and asked that you convey to Brother Sparks their commendation for his gospel study.

Sincerely yours, (signed) F. Michael Watson Secretary to the First Presidency

According to FAIR:

Bro. Watson seems to have been speaking on his own understanding of the matter, and not as an official declaration of Church policy. In 1993, he sent a clarification letter:

The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.

I have highlighted the discrepancy for those who may not understand the problem.

According to FAIR, Watson was speaking "on his own understanding of the matter".

But something is obvious, namely:

Watson, in the original letter, even if he was speaking "on his own understanding", reflected the views of numerous past presidents of the Church, and particularly Joseph Fielding Smith, who uncategorically denounced "modern theories" of Book of Mormon geography, "contrary to the revelations and the teachings of prophets".

The Golden Question: Why did the second Watson letter contradict the first? Was he (Watson) under pressure, and from who? The First Presidency? Or FARMS? (Via a Hamblin or Peterson letter?)

What brought about this "official" change of opinion from the Secretary to the FP, in a letter we are yet to see?

Even if the letter is produced, the question still remains - does FARMS have enormous sway with First Presidency opinion on Book of Mormon geography?

Was there indeed a "change of opinion"? Or did Hamblin rephrase what the second letter contained (if it existed)?