DiscussMormonism.com

sock puppet wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:11 pm

malkie wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 07, 2022 5:32 pm

Didn't the second letter go missing in the office of one of the apologists? (I don't think it was DCP's, but I don't remember whose it was.)

I wonder if anyone has made a serious effort to find it, especially since it seems to be an important document.

It turns out that the "2nd Watson Letter" never really was such. All that Matt Roper provided to Dr. Smith in early 2010 when the NAMIRS office was moving was an unsigned fax sent by a Carla Ogden to NAMIRS, the text of which was simply a word-for-word lift from a couple of paragraphs from Ludlow's Encyclopedia of Mormonism. David A. Palmer, “Cumorah,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992), 1:346–34. Ogden was a non-ecclesiastical administrative assistant to Watson. Whereas the first (and only) Watson letter was signed by Michael F. Watson, a set-apart, GA working in the office of and for the First Presidency.

DCP claimed to have seen the so-called second Watson letter "with his own eyes" and held it "in his own hands", and claimed others at NAMIRS had too. DCP persisted for weeks in December 2009 in such claims over at MD&D, until Bill Hamblin disabused DCP of the notion, and explained the only "retraction" of the first (and only) Watson letter on the topic was the Carla Ogden fax.

Dr Exiled wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:32 pm

sock puppet wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:11 pm

It turns out that the "2nd Watson Letter" never really was such. All that Matt Roper provided to Dr. Smith in early 2010 when the NAMIRS office was moving was an unsigned fax sent by a Carla Ogden to NAMIRS, the text of which was simply a word-for-word lift from a couple of paragraphs from Ludlow's Encyclopedia of Mormonism. David A. Palmer, “Cumorah,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1992), 1:346–34. Ogden was a non-ecclesiastical administrative assistant to Watson. Whereas the first (and only) Watson letter was signed by Michael F. Watson, a set-apart, GA working in the office of and for the First Presidency.

DCP claimed to have seen the so-called second Watson letter "with his own eyes" and held it "in his own hands", and claimed others at NAMIRS had too. DCP persisted for weeks in December 2009 in such claims over at MD&D, until Bill Hamblin disabused DCP of the notion, and explained the only "retraction" of the first (and only) Watson letter on the topic was the Carla Ogden fax.

So, DCP saw the fax cover with his own eyes and held the fax cover with his own hands? His legacy is still intact people! He saw it and felt it just like St. Hyrum did with the plates of old. Just substitute fax cover sheet for letter and the reputation lives on.

sock puppet wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 07, 2022 8:35 pm

Dr Exiled wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:32 pm

So, DCP saw the fax cover with his own eyes and held the fax cover with his own hands? His legacy is still intact people! He saw it and felt it just like St. Hyrum did with the plates of old. Just substitute fax cover sheet for letter and the reputation lives on.

There is a long and storied tradition in Mormonism of testifying that its adherents have seen things that they haven't. DCP just proved his Mormon bona fides by having so insisted when it was false.

Bought Yahoo wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:10 pm

sock puppet wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 07, 2022 8:35 pm

There is a long and storied tradition in Mormonism of testifying that its adherents have seen things that they haven't. DCP just proved his Mormon bona fides by having so insisted when it was false.

Have you seen my paper analyzing the second fax? Lots of problems with it. https://bobcrockettlaw.com/wp-content/u ... graphy.pdf. I personally think it was constructed after the fact by somebody who lost the original. The most telling problems: Brent Hall has never authenticated this document when he could have easily done so, and there is no fax strip.

Also I call into question the use of proportional fonts for a document that old.

Bought Yahoo wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:10 pm

sock puppet wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 07, 2022 8:35 pm

There is a long and storied tradition in Mormonism of testifying that its adherents have seen things that they haven't. DCP just proved his Mormon bona fides by having so insisted when it was false.

Have you seen my paper analyzing the second fax? Lots of problems with it. https://bobcrockettlaw.com/wp-content/u ... graphy.pdf. I personally think it was constructed after the fact by somebody who lost the original. The most telling problems: Brent Hall has never authenticated this document when he could have easily done so, and there is no fax strip.

Also I call into question the use of proportional fonts for a document that old.

drumdude wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 07, 2022 11:07 pm

I appreciate Yahoo’s 47 page report to help us see what the church’s position might be, but one has to ask: why can’t any of the dozens of current seers and revelators just come out and plainly reveal to us the location?

The answer must be that God wants us to believe without evidence.