“Peter Pan” is Unmasked as Mike Parker

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: “Peter Pan” is Unmasked as Mike Parker

Post by Marcus »

malkie wrote:
Fri Mar 17, 2023 7:04 pm
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Fri Mar 17, 2023 6:38 pm
One other thing I'll add: the First Watson Letter frankly supports the Heartlanders' position. The 2nd Watson Letter, which the Mopologists lied about repeatedly (and there are loads of inaccuracies about it on FAIR's website), supports the idea that the Church *does not* take an official position. So these are arguments about Book of Mormon geography that the Church has officially "endorsed" in one way or another:

--That the "real" Cumorah is in New York, and that the events of the Book of Mormon (such as the final Nephite/Lamanite battle) took place there as well.
--That the Church does not take any official stance.

Do you know what argument the Church has *never* formally endorsed? The Mopologists' LGT/Meso American model. The best somebody like Parker can come up with are non-canonical pictures in these old BoMs. Even the 2nd Watson Letter doesn't support their ideas: it takes a completely neutral stance. Meanwhile, Midgley has admitted that they had to wait for Elder Petersen to die before they could begin publishing material on the Meso American model, so, really, it seems to me that the Heartlanders have the edge in terms of "official" ecclesiastical endorsements of their views.
Might I suggest a slight modification?

the First Watson Letter is an accurate description - it did indeed come from the desk of F Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency, and was typed on First Presidency letterhead.

But there is no reason at all to describe the fax from Carla Ogden as a Second Watson Letter - - it did not come from the desk of F Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency, and was not even typed on First Presidency letterhead. I'm disinclined to grace it with such a description.

Nobody, as far as I know, has ever produced a second letter on the topic from Watson.
Maybe call it the gold plates version of a letter, in other words, belief it exists requires blind acceptance of Witnesses.
User avatar
Doctor Steuss
God
Posts: 1671
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:48 pm

Re: “Peter Pan” is Unmasked as Mike Parker

Post by Doctor Steuss »

Marcus wrote:
Fri Mar 17, 2023 7:17 pm
Maybe call it the gold plates version of a letter, in other words, belief it exists requires blind acceptance of Witnesses.
The sealed Watson letter, which cannot be read by the wicked, and confounds the learned.
toon
CTR B
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 5:23 pm

Re: “Peter Pan” is Unmasked as Mike Parker

Post by toon »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Fri Mar 17, 2023 6:48 pm
Tom wrote:
Fri Mar 17, 2023 3:48 pm
The latest from the Neville Obsession Board (NOB):

(emphasis in original)

That's not much of an offer, Brother Pan.
Brother Pan? Isn’t that Mike Parker, who resides in Hurricane, Utah, and teaches ‘adult religion classes’? You know, hate blogger Mike Parker who regularly trashes fellow Latter-day Saints over fairly niche doctrinal opinions?

- Doc
What’s the difference between an “adult religion class” and an “NC-17 religion class?” Just askin’.
Tom
Area Authority
Posts: 613
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:41 pm

Re: “Peter Pan” is Unmasked as Mike Parker

Post by Tom »

malkie wrote:
Fri Mar 17, 2023 7:04 pm
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Fri Mar 17, 2023 6:38 pm
One other thing I'll add: the First Watson Letter frankly supports the Heartlanders' position. The 2nd Watson Letter, which the Mopologists lied about repeatedly (and there are loads of inaccuracies about it on FAIR's website), supports the idea that the Church *does not* take an official position. So these are arguments about Book of Mormon geography that the Church has officially "endorsed" in one way or another:

--That the "real" Cumorah is in New York, and that the events of the Book of Mormon (such as the final Nephite/Lamanite battle) took place there as well.
--That the Church does not take any official stance.

Do you know what argument the Church has *never* formally endorsed? The Mopologists' LGT/Meso American model. The best somebody like Parker can come up with are non-canonical pictures in these old BoMs. Even the 2nd Watson Letter doesn't support their ideas: it takes a completely neutral stance. Meanwhile, Midgley has admitted that they had to wait for Elder Petersen to die before they could begin publishing material on the Meso American model, so, really, it seems to me that the Heartlanders have the edge in terms of "official" ecclesiastical endorsements of their views.
Might I suggest a slight modification?

the First Watson Letter is an accurate description - it did indeed come from the desk of F Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency, and was typed on First Presidency letterhead.

But there is no reason at all to describe the fax from Carla Ogden as a Second Watson Letter - - it did not come from the desk of F Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency, and was not even typed on First Presidency letterhead. I'm disinclined to grace it with such a description.

Nobody, as far as I know, has ever produced a second letter on the topic from Watson.
I think you're forgetting about the pre-1985 Watson letter. Dr. Peterson set the record straight in a 2009 comment:
Ho ho ho!

So irritated have I become by repeated accusations that I'm a liar or that I'm losing my mind, that I actually did call the Office of the First Presidency yesterday, and a secretary there was kind enough to search through their records for me. I gave her the 1993 date. This was fine, she said, since the records of their correspondence go back to 1987. When she called back, though, she said that she was unable to find any such letter on that date in 1993, or on any date in the vicinity, although she had looked under Hamblin, Hall, and FARMS. I found this extremely puzzling, and so, she said, did she, because, she told me, the language I had reported to her sounds very much like a standard letter that they have sent out for many years now.

So I wrote to Bill and asked him, again, whether there was any chance that I was misremembering. My memory on certain things was distinct: I knew that I had seen and read and held the letter, and that it was a letter, and that it was a letter from Michael Watson.

As I've said before, though, I wasn't clear as to exactly how Professor Hamblin had made contact with Michael Watson. I had assumed that he had written to him shortly before I saw the letter, but I was always a bit hazy on that.

Now (cue drum roll), Professor Hamblin has just surprised me with something that I hadn't known, and hadn't suspected: "You are senile," he writes from Cordoba, Spain (my emphasis). "I published the letter in 1993. However, I received it while still in graduate school =before 1985."

This will certainly give rise to a whole new flurry of accusations of deception, incompetence, and etc. The Maxwell Institute is about to fall, and blah blah blah. I'm sure I'll be accused of lying, as will Professor Hamblin. We're only in it for the money. We'll say absolutely anything, because we have no integrity, etc., and etc.

I simply report the facts as they are known (or become known) to me.

According to Wikipedia, F. Michael Watson was secretary to the First Presidency from 1986 until his call as a General Authority in 2008, but had served as an assistant secretary to the First Presidency from 1972-1986.

Incidentally, the secretary reported that somebody else had called them and requested a search for the letter about a year ago, and that the office had failed to find the "1993" letter at that time, too. It wasn't yours truly, and, so far as I'm aware, it wasn't Professor Hamblin. My bet is that it was my Malevolent Stalker, or somebody of that ilk. But who knows?

As to why the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies apparently gives the date of the Carla Ogden fax as the date of the letter from Michael Watson, I could not begin to say. I am not, and have never been, the editor of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.

And why did Michael Watson write something else to Bishop Brooks in 1990? Again, I cannot say. I simply report the facts as I know them or learn them. And then I'm accused of being a lying fool. That's pretty much how it works.
Facts.
“But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong.” Heber C. Kimball, 8 Nov. 1857
User avatar
malkie
God
Posts: 1478
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:41 pm

Re: “Peter Pan” is Unmasked as Mike Parker

Post by malkie »

Tom wrote:
Fri Mar 17, 2023 8:29 pm
malkie wrote:
Fri Mar 17, 2023 7:04 pm

Might I suggest a slight modification?

the First Watson Letter is an accurate description - it did indeed come from the desk of F Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency, and was typed on First Presidency letterhead.

But there is no reason at all to describe the fax from Carla Ogden as a Second Watson Letter - - it did not come from the desk of F Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency, and was not even typed on First Presidency letterhead. I'm disinclined to grace it with such a description.

Nobody, as far as I know, has ever produced a second letter on the topic from Watson.
I think you're forgetting about the pre-1985 Watson letter. Dr. Peterson set the record straight in a 2009 comment:
Ho ho ho!

So irritated have I become by repeated accusations that I'm a liar or that I'm losing my mind, that I actually did call the Office of the First Presidency yesterday, and a secretary there was kind enough to search through their records for me. I gave her the 1993 date. This was fine, she said, since the records of their correspondence go back to 1987. When she called back, though, she said that she was unable to find any such letter on that date in 1993, or on any date in the vicinity, although she had looked under Hamblin, Hall, and FARMS. I found this extremely puzzling, and so, she said, did she, because, she told me, the language I had reported to her sounds very much like a standard letter that they have sent out for many years now.

So I wrote to Bill and asked him, again, whether there was any chance that I was misremembering. My memory on certain things was distinct: I knew that I had seen and read and held the letter, and that it was a letter, and that it was a letter from Michael Watson.

As I've said before, though, I wasn't clear as to exactly how Professor Hamblin had made contact with Michael Watson. I had assumed that he had written to him shortly before I saw the letter, but I was always a bit hazy on that.

Now (cue drum roll), Professor Hamblin has just surprised me with something that I hadn't known, and hadn't suspected: "You are senile," he writes from Cordoba, Spain (my emphasis). "I published the letter in 1993. However, I received it while still in graduate school =before 1985."

This will certainly give rise to a whole new flurry of accusations of deception, incompetence, and etc. The Maxwell Institute is about to fall, and blah blah blah. I'm sure I'll be accused of lying, as will Professor Hamblin. We're only in it for the money. We'll say absolutely anything, because we have no integrity, etc., and etc.

I simply report the facts as they are known (or become known) to me.

According to Wikipedia, F. Michael Watson was secretary to the First Presidency from 1986 until his call as a General Authority in 2008, but had served as an assistant secretary to the First Presidency from 1972-1986.

Incidentally, the secretary reported that somebody else had called them and requested a search for the letter about a year ago, and that the office had failed to find the "1993" letter at that time, too. It wasn't yours truly, and, so far as I'm aware, it wasn't Professor Hamblin. My bet is that it was my Malevolent Stalker, or somebody of that ilk. But who knows?

As to why the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies apparently gives the date of the Carla Ogden fax as the date of the letter from Michael Watson, I could not begin to say. I am not, and have never been, the editor of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.

And why did Michael Watson write something else to Bishop Brooks in 1990? Again, I cannot say. I simply report the facts as I know them or learn them. And then I'm accused of being a lying fool. That's pretty much how it works.
Facts.
I'm getting confused, Tom - actually, "more confused" might be more accurate.

So, if it existed somewhere other than in the memories of Bill H and Dan P, would this perhaps be a Zeroth Watson Letter?
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details.
Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
Tom
Area Authority
Posts: 613
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:41 pm

Re: “Peter Pan” is Unmasked as Mike Parker

Post by Tom »

malkie wrote:
Fri Mar 17, 2023 8:52 pm
Tom wrote:
Fri Mar 17, 2023 8:29 pm

I think you're forgetting about the pre-1985 Watson letter. Dr. Peterson set the record straight in a 2009 comment:

Facts.
I'm getting confused, Tom - actually, "more confused" might be more accurate.

So, if it existed somewhere other than in the memories of Bill H and Dan P, would this perhaps be a Zeroth Watson Letter?
Technically speaking, that’s correct.
“But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong.” Heber C. Kimball, 8 Nov. 1857
User avatar
Doctor Steuss
God
Posts: 1671
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:48 pm

Re: “Peter Pan” is Unmasked as Mike Parker

Post by Doctor Steuss »

Reading through some of that thread, and my heart sure misses Uncle Dale.
drumdude
God
Posts: 5213
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: “Peter Pan” is Unmasked as Mike Parker

Post by drumdude »

DCP wrote:Oatmeal: "Thank you for your comments Gemli. I agree with your statement about how Mormons can read it and not be left with lots of questions. Mormonism hasn’t fared too well in the Information Age. It seems like the more people learn about Mormons, the more people dislike Mormons."

We may have to ask you two to get a room. A room, preferably, furnished with Hitchens's awful book in one of the bedside drawers.

Alright, fess up. Which one of you is Shaquille Oatmeal :lol:
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: “Peter Pan” is Unmasked as Mike Parker

Post by Kishkumen »

Doctor Steuss wrote:
Fri Mar 17, 2023 9:57 pm
Reading through some of that thread, and my heart sure misses Uncle Dale.
He was a treasure. I would love to know his post-MDB history. He was having serious health problems before he left the board.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: “Peter Pan” is Unmasked as Mike Parker

Post by Doctor Scratch »

It would appear to be official:

https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2023 ... s.html?m=1

He offers up a “Q&A” of sorts, but two key questions remain:

—Who was “Captain Hook”?
—Why did he pretend to be Richard Nygren?
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Post Reply