F. Michael Watson Personally clarifies Hill Cumorah Letter

[sock puppet]

"Over at the Obsession Blog, there is a veritable lollapalooza of screeching and excitement over the supposed "Second Watson Letter Scandal" or some such. There is no scandal, of course, except the one which they have created in their minds. They have taken everything I had said so completely out of context, that it is unrecognizable to me and my army of sycophants. Even my best friends and wife can't believe how utterly strange it is that they should focus on these tiny little details that are so easily explained away with my trademark well-reasoned arguments."

'tiny details' indeed. I'm sure General Daniel and his army of sycophants are scrambling in damage control mode.

[Tom]

Is that the press that publishes Jonathan Neville’s and Rod Meldrum’s books?

I hope a follow-up interview can be arranged in which Elder Watson is asked about the letter that Dr. Hamblin received before 1985.

[Kishkumen]

https://www.mobom.org/1990-letter-on-cumorah

Start on the bottom of page 3 of the included document of an interview with Watson. He verifies that Fair/Farms and Dan Peterson and others have been false about their framing of the issue. It wouldn't let me copy the letter's text but if someone finds a way this is big and confirms what my source said.

This issue has always puzzled me. Why die on this hill? Why make up or embellish things to prop up the Mesoamerican geography with its second Cumorah? The LDS apologetic effort has seen its credibility harmed by this whole thing.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Does this question by Beastie get answered by this document?

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/46 ... 1208776038

Wait a minute. If Watson knew in 1985 that the official church position was that there is no position on Cumorah, why the heck did he write the 1990 letter in the first place? And why did he need educated in 1990, when he supposedly knew the right answer in 1985???

Because from my POV, someone was lying through their teeth.

- Doc

[Gadianton]

I don't think the invention and the embellishment is pre-meditated fraud. I think it's the religious experience of being swept up in tribal rightness. I don't think the Mopologists behave any different than other TBMs, aside from higher levels of anger which cloud judgement all the more, but not fundamentally responsible for the oversight.

It's very much like the testimony. At least in my theory of the testimony, which is based on "down-zipper" fabrication.

Say I'm a Mopologist.

Somehow, the idea came up that there is this second Watson letter that vindicates our viewpoint. Brother X throws it out that he's sure there was such a thing. I'm thinking that I don't recall it, but I trust Brother X. Brother X actually had doubts when he said it, but he thinks *I* know something about it and so threw it out there. Of course I back him up, and he sees my nod and is convinced there was something to what he said all along.

Well, the errors of circular reinforcement based on nothing compound even more when dealing with very bad information. The psychology to side with someone you think is right when they only had their idea because they thought you knew something about it is already a big problem. But it's even worse when the idea is a bad one that you know is wrong. That's the "down zipper" -- the testimony bearer testifies to something ridiculous, but the vulnerability in making a fool of themselves is analogous to the "down zipper", that in a polite circle of friends the down zipper is given a free pass, and making fun of the vulnerable person is a tremendous offense.

[Kishkumen]

I suppose. But wow! I figured there was a real commitment to the rightness of fighting against the Heartlanders, who are viewed as too fringey. If the Brethren don’t see how dangerous the Heartlanders are, it may require a little fudging to do what’s best for everyone. Second Watson letter, Ogden fax? What does it matter? The Brethren will thank us later for saving testimonies. In the short run, we are *sure* there was something official seeming we can point to to hold down the fort until the Brethren really understand the gravity of the problem.

In other words, I detect a note of ark steadying here.

[drumdude]

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.

“I cannot say.”

[Gadianton]

By the way, for those who are newer to the board or lurking and don't see how the Second Watson letter could be that big of a deal, here is a link to what might be the most explosive thread ever to appear on this board:

https://www.discussmormonism.com/viewto ... 1&t=111121

Here's what I said about it near the end of the thread all of those years ago:

all I'll say about this is that, if you suspect this is 20 pages of the same thing over and over again as many of these conflicts go, then your suspicions are wrong. The rabbit hole gets deeper with every page. If you get to page 9 and think okay, you got the idea, the big revelation has come and that's that, no, the revelations keep coming. I wouldn't even know how to summarize this whole thing. It's so crazy that at the end of the day, the .5 watson letter was allegedly found, not the second.

I may have to review this epic thread over the weekend if I have some time.

[consiglieri]

It’s not a lie if you believe it.

[Moksha]

Because from my POV, someone was lying through their teeth.

- Doc

You must remember, they were tasked with the Heavenly charge of "No more slam dunks" but without clear guidelines for personal fouls, goaltending, or information fabrication. They were forced into a make-it-up-as-you-go-along position as the designated defenders of the Church. Besides, Richard Nygren told them to do it.