2nd Watson Letter just found!'

[_Doctor Scratch]

Isn't Greg Smith of the opinion that the 2nd Letter says precisely what DCP claims it says--something like the first letter was in error and neither the church nor the Brethren take an official stand on the matter? If so, how can that be a "blunder" for the Sorensonites? *

Dr. Shades---

I consider it a "tactical," rather than a "doctrinal," blunder. If one views all of this as being fundamentally about who is right or wrong in terms of doctrine---i.e., that the whole battle boils down to which Cumorah location the Brethren support---then yes, I would agree with you that Greg Smith is doing the "right" thing.

But I do not see the "battle" as being about doctrine per se in the long run. The issue has never really been the content of the letter, after all. If the Brethren, via this 2nd Letter, appear to side with the apologists, so what? It's just one more instance of the Church shifting its own doctrines. Is this a victory for the apologists, though? I don't think so, and in fact I think that they sacrifice far more than they gain. Consider:

---The appearance of the letter, if it's legit, will show that DCP lied about there being only one copy. (Indeed, it will show that he lied repeatedly, over many years, and tried again and again to downplay its importance and significance.) Even now he is trying to claim that this is a "non-issue."
---If the above is true, it will strike a major blow against Dr. Peterson's credibility. After all, if he is willing to dissemble about this, what else is he willing to lie about? FARMS financing? The way that critics are targeted for smear campaigns? What?
---The letter will show how shaky the Brethren are in terms of knowing the Church's own doctrine.
---It will show how much the apologists are in control of doctrine. (Which may put them in hot water with the "pro-Meldrum" faction of the GAs.)
---It will point to the even more problematic communique that was originally sent by Prof. Hamblin.

All of this is supposing that Greg Smith really will post the letter, and that it is legitimate, etc. If it turns out to be a forgery, on the other hand, this will set off a whole new chain of very negative consequences for the apologists. Either way you look at it, bad things are heading the apologists' way.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Everyone,

What I find interesting is the following:

1) A 1st Watson Letter of some sort does, indeed, exist since there exists a scanned copy of it on the Internet. However, whether it is an authentically produced letter from Mr. Watson is unconfirmed. Frankly, it could be a hoax just as easily as it could be an authentic memorandum.

2) The purported 2nd Watson Letter has not been produced as of yet. Once it is produced we still have the problem of authenticity. We do not know if it will be a Ratherian hoax perpetrated by Maxwell Institute zealots, or some like-minded individual.

3) We have not seen the Hamblin Query Letter which would shed some light on these events.

4) Past attempts to seek proof from Dr. Peterson's colleagues reference copies of the 2nd Watson Letter, by interested members and skeptics alike, at the behest of Dr. Peterson, have produced precisely zero responses. His rather callous suggestion to seek a response from his colleagues was a truly vindictive and bitter ruse foisted upon well-intentioned people.

As it stands now the Mormon Church has stated unequivocally that the Hill Cumorah in New York is the same one identified in the Book of Mormon. The apologists are simply lying. This is a terrible catch-22 for the First Presidency if they openly contradict historical statements by numerous prophets, apostles, and elders of the Mormon Church. Also, frankly, if they change their doctrinal position based off the recommendations of "worldly" scholarship they themselves will have shifted a tremendous amount of power to the Maxwell Institute. I am interested to see if the poster on the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board produces a second document.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Joey]

This is really getting comical!

Next thing we probably hear is Peterson attempting to convince us there were Vegas night club hosts in Melbourne the same time he was who were intentionally there to see him, and not just there "by coincident"! Greg Smith will probably attempt to provide a copy of Sorenson's video from the trip in support!

[_Dr. Shades]

---The appearance of the letter, if it's legit, will show that DCP lied about there being only one copy. (Indeed, it will show that he lied repeatedly, over many years, and tried again and again to downplay its importance and significance.) Even now he is trying to claim that this is a "non-issue."

Please forgive me if I engage in a little "devil's advocacy:" Is it possible that DCP simply wasn't aware of any more copies beyond the original? Especially if copies were made from Hamblin's original after DCP laid eyes on it? (I admit, I haven't been keeping up with the MA&D thread on this.)

---If the above is true, it will strike a major blow against Dr. Peterson's credibility. After all, if he is willing to dissemble about this, what else is he willing to lie about? FARMS financing? The way that critics are targeted for smear campaigns? What?

Cf. my above response, of course.

---The letter will show how shaky the Brethren are in terms of knowing the Church's own doctrine.

I can agree with that. On the other hand, perhaps they're just trying to be all things to all people.

---It will show how much the apologists are in control of doctrine. (Which may put them in hot water with the "pro-Meldrum" faction of the GAs.)

I can agree with the first sentence. As for the second sentence, do you think that the Brethren are simply too heavily invested in FARMS/MI--witness its having been made an official department of BYU--for them (the Brethren) to backpedal on FARMS/MI?

Either way, if it's true that Packer is the chief Meldrumite among the Brethren, then I hope to high Heaven that he becomes prophet soon (no ill will toward President Monson, of course). Just imagine the fireworks!

---It will point to the even more problematic communique that was originally sent by Prof. Hamblin.

I agree. Truth be told, though, as interesting as the 2nd Watson letter may (or may not) turn out to be, if I had to choose A or B, I'd much, much rather see Hamblin's original letter to the Brethren. (I'm sure, given the same choice, that many others would agree.) I can only imagine what it must've contained to convince the Brethren to so radically shift gears like that!

All of this is supposing that Greg Smith really will post the letter, and that it is legitimate, etc.

Speaking of which, what's taking him so darn long?

If it turns out to be a forgery, on the other hand, this will set off a whole new chain of very negative consequences for the apologists. Either way you look at it, bad things are heading the apologists' way.

As an aside, what's this talk about notes in red ink scribbled on the letter?

[_Joey]

Please forgive me if I engage in a little "devil's advocacy:" Is it possible that DCP simply wasn't aware of any more copies beyond the original? Especially if copies were made from Hamblin's original after DCP laid eyes on it? (I admit, I haven't been keeping up with the MA&D thread on this.)

Do you believe that if Peterson actually saw this supposed first communique, and it was "annotated" with relevant context as Smith now claims, Peterson would have been all too eager to volunteer this information at the time??

Someone is not telling the truth here!

[_Doctor Scratch]

---The appearance of the letter, if it's legit, will show that DCP lied about there being only one copy. (Indeed, it will show that he lied repeatedly, over many years, and tried again and again to downplay its importance and significance.) Even now he is trying to claim that this is a "non-issue."

Please forgive me if I engage in a little "devil's advocacy:" Is it possible that DCP simply wasn't aware of any more copies beyond the original? Especially if copies were made from Hamblin's original after DCP laid eyes on it? (I admit, I haven't been keeping up with the MA&D thread on this.)

It's possible, sure. But, that does nothing to alter the fact that Professor Peterson swore up and down that the *only* copy of the letter had been lost in Bill Hamblin's messy office. When asked about this over the years, he insisted again and again that the best course of action was to write the office of the First Presidency, or to contact Michael Watson, etc.---something that people did to no effect.

So, it really doesn't matter if he was "aware" of these copies or not. He still made a rather monumental effort to portray the story a particular way. Bear in mind that he has been saying this stuff for years.

---If the above is true, it will strike a major blow against Dr. Peterson's credibility. After all, if he is willing to dissemble about this, what else is he willing to lie about? FARMS financing? The way that critics are targeted for smear campaigns? What?

Cf. my above response, of course.

Another thing: when the story broke about FARMS's interference in Medrum's book publication, DCP denied categorically that FARMS had anything to do with it. He made out as if he was speaking for himself, for FARMS as an organization, and for every last person employed by, associated with, or involved in FARMS. If the 2nd Watson Letter is posted early next week, as Smith claims it will be, I think that we can dismiss this and any future sweeping claims from The Good Professor as pure hogwash and spin-doctored nonsense.

---It will show how much the apologists are in control of doctrine. (Which may put them in hot water with the "pro-Meldrum" faction of the GAs.)

I can agree with the first sentence. As for the second sentence, do you think that the Brethren are simply too heavily invested in FARMS/MI--witness its having been made an official department of BYU--for them (the Brethren) to backpedal on FARMS/MI?

I don't know. I think anything can happen. The Brethren have done reckless things in the past, after all.

All of this is supposing that Greg Smith really will post the letter, and that it is legitimate, etc.

Speaking of which, what's taking him so darn long?

My impression is that the letter was being mailed from SLC to Canada, so he's waiting on snail mail.

If it turns out to be a forgery, on the other hand, this will set off a whole new chain of very negative consequences for the apologists. Either way you look at it, bad things are heading the apologists' way.

As an aside, what's this talk about notes in red ink scribbled on the letter?

Smith claims that there are "annotations" on the letter of some kind---hand-written remarks from either Bro. Watson or from one of the General Authorities. This, too, would create problems with DCP's story, since he has *always* insisted that there was nothing on the text beyond the typed letter itself. Joey is 100% right in this instance: someone is not telling the truth.

[_Ray A]

Peterson at 5:00 am on a Sunday morning posting on the MAD board!

Like just about anything!

Ah, DCP trivia. According to my calculations he made that post at 11pm Sunday Melbourne time, and edited it at 1am Melbourne time. Lucky Dan that the weather forecast is mild for the rest of the week. It can get stinking hot in Melbourne in the summer, but that doesn't usually occur until January- February. I'm not surprised he's focused on the board with the Watson letter revelation.

[_Dr. Shades]

Do you believe that if Peterson actually saw this supposed first communique, and it was "annotated" with relevant context as Smith now claims, Peterson would have been all too eager to volunteer this information at the time??

I think it depends entirely on what the annotations said.

. . . Professor Peterson swore up and down that the *only* copy of the letter had been lost in Bill Hamblin's messy office. . . So, it really doesn't matter if he was "aware" of these copies or not. He still made a rather monumental effort to portray the story a particular way. Bear in mind that he has been saying this stuff for years.

Ahh, okay. Your position vis-a-vis the letter being a tactical blunder is beginning to come into focus. Perhaps I'm just slow on the uptake.

Another thing: when the story broke about FARMS's interference in Medrum's book publication, DCP denied categorically that FARMS had anything to do with it. He made out as if he was speaking for himself, for FARMS as an organization, and for every last person employed by, associated with, or involved in FARMS. If the 2nd Watson Letter is posted early next week, as Smith claims it will be, I think that we can dismiss this and any future sweeping claims from The Good Professor as pure hogwash and spin-doctored nonsense.

Well, grasping at straws here, perhaps there's the possibility that someone from FARMS called the Brethren without consulting DCP? Of course, that in and of itself raises the question how a rogue FARMS author would qualify for an advance copy of the book, but oh well.

. . . do you think that the Brethren are simply too heavily invested in FARMS/MI--witness its having been made an official department of BYU--for them (the Brethren) to backpedal on FARMS/MI?

I don't know. I think anything can happen. The Brethren have done reckless things in the past, after all.

Yes, but their "reckless things" have never included correcting their mistakes. So even though Hinckley may have prematurely integrated FARMS into BYU, do you think it would be even more reckless of them to throw FARMS/MI under the bus at this late stage?

My impression is that the letter was being mailed from SLC to Canada, so he's waiting on snail mail.

Forgive the aside, but how did it end up in Canada?

Smith claims that there are "annotations" on the letter of some kind---hand-written remarks from either Bro. Watson or from one of the General Authorities. This, too, would create problems with DCP's story, since he has *always* insisted that there was nothing on the text beyond the typed letter itself.

Really? That's interesting; because I don't recall such a thing ever coming up in conversation. (Of course, I'm not omniscient, so perhaps such a subject came up at some point and in some place about which I'm unaware. The question, "Was there anything else handwritten on the letter after-the-fact?" seems like quite an obscure thing to ask, though.)

[_karl61]

The thing to do is track down Bishop B who the letter is addressed to and ask if it is real.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Again,

I must admit I await this letter with baited breath! I am curious as to why it was not simply scanned, and e-mailed to the poster in question? What would be the purpose of providing a copy (of a copy?) to him?

For an issue to be as boring as Dr. Peterson insinuates it sure is garnering a lot of attention within apologist circles. Note the following if you would (bolds and enumeration are mine):

On the second Watson letter:

(1) I have a contact at the FARMS office, who located a copy of the letter from John Sorenson's files (their offices moved fairly recently, and (2) that's how it got mislaid). It is still on (3) the original fax paper from the First Presidency's office, and it (4) has a note on it discussing a bit more about the provenance.

(5) My contact is snail-mailing me the copy, and I(6) have permission to post it to the FAIR wiki when it arrives. It was mailed today; it will probably be up by early next week depending on the vagaries of the US and Canadian postal services.

(7) The text is reportedly as printed in the FARMS Review article by Hamblin. It is also made clear by (8)an annotation on the fax that the First Presidency wished to clarify the impression left by Bro. (now Elder) Watson's first letter.

But, doubters can soon see the text for themselves, it seems.

I will try to remember to post an announcement in this thread when it is up. (9)I expect the FAIR blog or newsletter will also contain a mention.

Best,

Greg Smith
FAIR wiki managing editor

I find Mr. Smith's note more than a little interesting for a subject that merits such little curiosity by luminaries within Mormon apologia.

1- Who is Mr. Smith's unnamed contact? And why does this contact have the ability to rummage through any file he or she deems fit? This is very curious.

2- The claim that the 2nd Watson Letter was mislaid is now demonstrated to be a lie. It was never mislaid, but rather placed in Mr. Sorenson's file. When one files paperwork, it is done so on purpose and with intent. Also, why would Mr. Sorenson have filed such an unimportant piece of paperwork? Curious!

3- An interesting paradox with this statement. Official letterhead lends legitimacy to this particular document, whereas official letterhead on the 1st Watson Letter does nothing to establish doctrinal authority.

4- It will be interesting to find out who wrote the note discussing “provenance”, which, I assume clarifies from whence the doctrinal claim of the 1st Watson Letter came.

5- Again, why use standard “snail mail”? Why not simply scan the letter? Very few, if any, question the credibility of the scanned 1st Watson Letter. Why would anyone need a hard copy of the facsimile in question?

6- Who gave the managing editor permission to post a copy of this fax to FAIR Wiki? That, in of itself, demonstrates a group effort addressing this issue, and structuring an apologetic response.

7- Who is reporting and verifying the text on the facsimile is the same as in Mr. Hamblin's article? Mr. Smith's unidentified source who has access to professorial files? This is a very curious statement, indeed.

8- Who made the annotation, and is that person acting as an authority on behalf of the First Presidency, and furthermore the Lord himself regarding this doctrinal matter?

This whole matter continues to gain more momentum as the days pass. What a display of secrecy and backdoor collusion!

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me