Revisiting the Watson Letter.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Over at the ironically named Mormon Dialogue and Discussion board, a poster brought up that Meldrum has been getting some extra attention from non-LDS scholars about his antics.

As an early Christmas Present to us, Dan had this to say:

For one thing, I think sloppy arguments and abuse of evidence need to be identified as such. For another, I periodically receive flurries of pretty insulting e-mails from Rod Meldrum -- earlier this week, for example --as well as very lengthy and elaborately and extraordinarily nasty messages from one of his followers (roughly three or four dozen such messages thus far, and, lately, one or more every Sunday and on Thanksgiving Day -- I can hardly wait for Christmas Sunday!) and my previous overall lack of interest in his positions and claims has begun to harden into a genuine dislike.

lol @ the bolded part! Oh Dan, recall the words of Camus when faced with the daily barrage of hate mail (strange you can't seem to keep yourself out of the mailboxes of a few people here):

La lutte elle-même vers les sommets suffit à remplir un cœur d'homme; il faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux

Translation: The fight itself towards the summits suffices to fill a heart of man; it is necessary to imagine Sisyphus happy.

But the real gem of the thread was when Mortal Man posted this image:

[_Drifting]

I would like to hear Mike Ash explain why he thinks the First Presidency got the location of the Hill Cumorah wrong in the letter posted in the Op...

[_Kishkumen]

Firstly, I never found the apologetic explanation for the Watson letter at all convincing. It was yet another instance of the "take our word for it" defense.

Having said that, I find the idea of receiving regular letters from Rodney Meldrum and his fan club to be a dreary thought.

Bottom line: I don't give a crap about geographical speculations concerning the Book of Mormon.

[_Chap]

Firstly, I never found the apologetic explanation for the Watson letter at all convincing. It was yet another instance of the "take our word for it" defense.

Having said that, I find the idea of receiving regular letters from Rodney Meldrum and his fan club to be a dreary thought.

Bottom line: I don't give a crap about geographical speculations concerning the Book of Mormon.

Since most posters on this board think (as I believe you do) that the Book of Mormon is a piece of early 19th C. fiction with no reality in history, your lack of personal investment in one or other interpretations of what it might mean if it did have any actual historical reference is understandable, and will certainly be widely shared on this board.

On the other hand, such interpretations are certainly an important issue for Mormon apologists, who are a legitimate topic of discussion on this board. And when a Mormon apologist who is a tenured academic (and makes not a little of that status) sneers at someone else's "abuse of evidence", I think a mild reminder of the Watson letter business is quite in order. That affair was, I recall, a fairly major demonstration of DCP's steely determination to crush the enemy at all costs, and by whatever means necessary ... a demonstration which imploded quite strikingly when the evidence he had over and over again insisted was there (he had seen it with his own eyes) proved to be illusory. It wasn't just a question of an explanation not being, on balance, convincing. It was more of a Fukushima moment in the tiny world of Mormon apologetic discourse.

And the content of the letter re-posted by Mortal Man recalls quite effectively the point that what Mormon apologists want us to believe about their religion often bears little relation to what the leaders of their church have generally taught, or what the majority of members seem to believe. That is of course one of the things that makes this rare subspecies of religious-minded intellectuals quite interesting.

[_Kishkumen]

Knock yourself out, Chap. I really don't care.

[_Chap]

Knock yourself out, Chap. I really don't care.

Someone who uses his energy to tell us twice how little he cares about some issue clearly cares about something relating to that issue. What could it be?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Having said that, I find the idea of receiving regular letters from Rodney Meldrum and his fan club to be a dreary thought.

I found that weird myself, since Rodney always came across as a stand up kinda guy, but I don’t think Dan would make that up, makes me curious as to the whole story.

[_Kishkumen]

Having said that, I find the idea of receiving regular letters from Rodney Meldrum and his fan club to be a dreary thought.

I found that weird myself, since Rodney always came across as a stand up kinda guy, but I don’t think Dan would make that up, makes me curious as to the whole story.

At this point I am not really taken aback by much of what anyone does in connection with all of this nonsense. I was particularly touched that someone wanted Daniel Peterson to believe that I was accusing him of hate speech by posting something false about that elsewhere.

It just makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

[_MrStakhanovite]

At this point I am not really taken aback by much of what anyone does in connection with all of this nonsense.

That is actually a really good observation.

[_Kishkumen]

Knock yourself out, Chap. I really don't care.

Someone who uses his energy to tell us twice how little he cares about some issue clearly cares about something relating to that issue. What could it be?

Why don't you fill in the blanks for my amusement?