My take on Daniel Peterson's response is pretty simple.
He wrote in his original column that there has been "no suppression" of the 1832 First Vision account.
This is where I called him out for lying.
The only way he could escape the charge of lying is by claiming he did not know about the fact Joseph Fielding Smith in the 1930s cut the 1832 account out of Letterbook 1 with a penknife and hid it in his safe for three decades until its existence became public knowledge and he was forced to tape it back in the Letterbook and have it "discovered" by Paul Cheeseman who was writing his master's thesis for BYU.
But as I fully expected, Daniel Peterson does know about this.
And in his response column quoted above, he admits to knowing about the suppression of the 1832 account by Joseph Fielding Smith, even though he appears to put this knowledge in the mouth of Kent P. Jackson whose email Professor Peterson quotes.
Here is the last paragraph of the article:
By the way, even if it’s true that Joseph Fielding Smith didn’t want to make the 1832 account public, that ended in the 1960s, which was over half a century ago! That’s ancient history. Paul Cheesman (BYU religion professor) analyzed the accounts in his 1965 MA thesis at BYU, then Dean Jessee published them in 1969. Yeah, keeping it under wraps.
Well, it is true that JFS did not want to make the 1832 account public, and it is true "that ended in the 1960's," and it is true that "was over half a century ago."
But it is also true that JFS hid the 1832 account in his safe for three decades.
And it is true that hiding it in his safe for three decades amounts to "suppression" of the document.
Finally, what this means is that when Professor Peterson wrote in his original column that there has been "no suppression," he is not telling the truth.
And he knows he is not telling the truth.
Which unfortunately, makes Professor Peterson a liar.