2nd Watson Letter just found!'

[_Nimrod]

'my, my, my, said the spider to the fly...'

We 'inmates' as Scott Lloyd now describes us have apparently misplaced altogether our glee/euphoria on this issue, and DCP feigns ignorance in not understanding our reasoning. Now, now, now, good professor, we know your intellect allows you to read and understand our points, the illogic of what has tumbled out of FARMS beginning in light of Hamblin's characterization in 1993 of the Carla Ogden Fax (a.k.a. 'the 2nd Watson Letter'), the FARMS chorus since and now the infamous '2nd Watson Letter' as Roper explained the Carla Ogden Fax he mailed a copy of to Dr. Smith.

Come clean, DCP, it will liberate you. After all, the truth will set you free.

[_Joey]

Wow! Absolutely Unbelievable!!

Hadn't checked in for some days, but I simply can't believe how anyone can give Peterson a scant in the benefit of doubt anymore!! This guy is one of the most dishonest folk on this board. "Tiger Peterson" it seems!

What's most incriminating is the amount of time and posts he is investing on MADB in damage control. It's with his usual arrogance but it's very clear that he knows he's taken a hit over this exposed deception. Why no word from Hamblin? He was real vocal about this back in2004 as well. Hiding?

The isolation and insulation of Provo do these guys well! What major chumps!

[_beastie]

And the text is the same. That's a mystery, I suppose. But not a very interesting one. And probably a pretty easy one to figure out, if one were so disposed. (I'm not. It doesn't matter to me.) I think it likely that there was some standard language developed to deal with this question, and that both the letter and the fax may well have gone out on the same date. (Why not?) I would guess that the Office of the First Presidency sends out scores of letters and other communications each and every day.

Oh, please. If critics had a similar "issue", DCP and other apologists would never cease making hay out of it, and insist that it makes the case that critics are untrustworthy.

If this were easy to resolve, DCP - or some apologist - would do it in a heartbeat.

[_Tchild]

Just a neophyte's observations, but, if the "1st Watson letter" (WL) as stated in the course of a single letter only, that the church's "official" stance on Book of Mormon geograpy was the hill Cumorah as located in New York...why then are there no other statements corrobating that first letter? Why is there nothing in the Ensign, in talks, in GC or any other LDS controlled media confirming the church's "official" position as one reads in the WL?

It seems to me that it would take a dozen "1st Watson letters"...or their church media pronouncement equivalents to make this "Watson letter" be of some real significance.

[_beastie]

Just a neophyte's observations, but, if the "1st Watson letter" (WL) as stated in the course of a single letter only, that the church's "official" stance on Book of Mormon geograpy was the hill Cumorah as located in New York...why then are there no other statements corrobating that first letter? Why is there nothing in the Ensign, in talks, in GC or any other LDS controlled media confirming the church's "official" position as one reads in the WL?

It seems to me that it would take a dozen "1st Watson letters"...or their church media pronouncement equivalents to make this "Watson letter" be of some real significance.

I think it's a Pandora's box church leaders would rather leave unopened. If they start issuing statements affirming that there is no position on the location of Cumorah, many chapel Mormons will be confused... and wonder why.. and maybe get on the internet to find out why.

[Guest]

Just a neophyte's observations, but, if the "1st Watson letter" (WL) as stated in the course of a single letter only, that the church's "official" stance on Book of Mormon geograpy was the hill Cumorah as located in New York...why then are there no other statements corrobating that first letter? Why is there nothing in the Ensign, in talks, in GC or any other LDS controlled media confirming the church's "official" position as one reads in the WL?

It seems to me that it would take a dozen "1st Watson letters"...or their church media pronouncement equivalents to make this "Watson letter" be of some real significance.

So something relating to LDS doctrine only has some real significance once the First Presidency (or church media pronouncement equivalents) mentions it 12 times? That's a procedural muster-test with which I am not familiar.

The 1st Watson Letter was apparently significant enough to Hamblin/DCP/FARMS that they foisted the Carla Ogden Fax up, on the false petard of and as the '2nd Watson Letter', including the text of the Carla Ogden Fax and discussing in in a lead article in an issue of the Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture.

Significance is relative. The 1st Watson is of no significance to you, but the significance to FARMS is far more than DCP lets on.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I think it's a Pandora's box church leaders would rather leave unopened. If they start issuing statements affirming that there is no position on the location of Cumorah, many chapel Mormons will be confused... and wonder why.. and maybe get on the internet to find out why.

Huh. That's an interesting (and valid) point, Beastie. It makes me wonder if DCP and Hamblin are telling the truth but just forgot to mention that they were also ordered to either lose or destroy the actual 2nd Watson Letter. Regardless, DCP's baloney about this being "easy" to resolve is pure, classic sophistry. If it's "easy" then let him resolve it.

[_Ray A]

Hamblin quoted the so-called "2nd Watson letter" in his JBMS essay. I don't normally take a strong interest in issues with Book of Abraham stuff, and many other subjects, but this subject has come to intrigue me.

I know most in the MAD-house (to borrow a term from d'Unck) don't see it as important, but the reason I do is because it reflects upon the basic accuracy of, what shall I call it, FARMS apologetics. I don't believe that DCP is an inherently dishonest person in that sense that he would deliberately and knowingly perpetrate a lie, but I do believe that he will go to extraordinary lengths to defend Mormonism (and himself); will seldom, if ever, back down from former claims (even when confronted with contrary evidence), and I've never known him to apologise for an error in his apologetic assumptions (though I could be wrong).

All he really has to say is something like, "look, guys, perhaps I was really mistaken; I'm sorry for all the hassles. There's really no First Presidency statement that supports our model, but we still believe it to be the best model, nothwithstanding".

But when it comes to apologetics, DCP's heart is as hard as the Pharaoh's. And that isn't impressive, no matter who you are, or from what vantage point you approach this.

[_moksha]

Who was Watson and why is this letter important. I guess there was a first letter. Briefly, what was that about?

Watson of course was a colleague of a certain Mr. Holmes, who had extensive dealings with the Mormons in his very first case. Dr. Watson was one to take meticulous notes, and undoubtedly set forth the contents of these notes in at least one letter. It is rumored that the letters contained the exact whereabouts of the Virgin of Red Butte Canyon, thus making it a much sought after item.

[_moksha]

© 2009 Daniel C. Peterson. De gustibus non est disputandum. Delirium tremens. Vade mecum. Sic transit gloria mundi.

For you non-Latin speakers: "Disgust is not in dispute from binge donuts. Once stomach settles it will be a glorious world".