2nd Watson Letter just found!'

[_Ray A]

Professor Peterson needs to make up his mind:

DCP

Evidently.

It's certainly not the document that I saw.

DCP

The text of the fax, however, seems to be identical to the letter that I saw and that is quoted in full in the FARMS Review.

[_Doctor Scratch]

One of my "informants" made an interesting suggestion: why don't the high-ranking apologists go to the Brethren and ask for a new, well-written letter on clean FP letterhead? Are they afraid of being ex'ed over this? (DCP claimed to be. Was he bluffing?)

[_Doctor Scratch]

Professor Peterson needs to make up his mind:

He has, Ray:

Yup. This doesn't appear to be the document that I saw. Unless I'm seriously, seriously misremembering -- and it's been more than fifteen years, I think -- what I saw was a letter, on letterhead, from Michael Watson, not a fax. But so what?

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.

So, he is dodging a bullet here, and tossing Wiki Wonka, Matt Roper, Greg Smith, and others under the bus, essentially branding them all as brazen liars. It needs to be pointed out that Prof. Peterson took a good 24 hours or so deliberating over this. Only now is he really weighing in and declaring that the fax is not the "letter" that he remembers. He probably spent all that time really measuring out his options, deciding whether it would be best to say that they'd screwed up a bit and called the "fax" a letter, and whether it would be better to essentially declare all these lower-tier apologists to be liars.

This is all remarkably callous and heartless, especially given that it's the holiday season. DCP says it would be "pretty easy to figure out," but is he going to lift a finger? No. He is going to sit on his butt, gloating about his stupid Mormon Scholar testimony site, and boasting about his "big deal" venture in the Middle East. If I were Greg Smith & Co., I would be awfully upset with him, and rightfully so.

[_Ray A]

He has, Ray:

Yup. This doesn't appear to be the document that I saw. Unless I'm seriously, seriously misremembering -- and it's been more than fifteen years, I think -- what I saw was a letter, on letterhead, from Michael Watson, not a fax. But so what?

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.

So, he is dodging a bullet here, and tossing Wiki Wonka, Matt Roper, Greg Smith, and others under the bus, essentially branding them all as brazen liars. It needs to be pointed out that Prof. Peterson took a good 24 hours or so deliberating over this. Only now is he really weighing in and declaring that the fax is not the "letter" that he remembers. He probably spent all that time really measuring out his options, deciding whether it would be best to say that they'd screwed up a bit and called the "fax" a letter, and whether it would be better to essentially declare all these lower-tier apologists to be liars.

This is all remarkably callous and heartless, especially given that it's the holiday season. DCP says it would be "pretty easy to figure out," but is he going to lift a finger? No. He is going to sit on his butt, gloating about his stupid Mormon Scholar testimony site, and boasting about his "big deal" venture in the Middle East. If I were Greg Smith & Co., I would be awfully upset with him, and rightfully so.

He may well be "seriously misremembering", but he has maintained, for what, 15 years now, that he saw a Michael Watson letter "correcting" the 1st Watson letter? Let's see the letter with the Michael Watson name on the letterhead before we go any further. Not Carla Ogden. Maybe DCP saw "Office of the First Presidency" and assumed it was from Michael Watson. So he perpetuated this story contrary to the facts. For all we may guess, this letter may have been sent as some kind of "appeaser" to FARMS, which in fact did not reflect the real views of the FP. I cannot imagine them so capriciously turning against 100 plus years of "prophetic statements" in deference to "The Church of the Scholars".

[_Ray A]

Cal doesn't seem to understand the situation:

I do not understand what the issue is. The point of the Watson letter was not that a particular person communicated in a particular way on a particular date, but rather the content.

The content has been confirmed and not only confirmed, but done so for the appropriate time period. Even if it isn't the identical letter, why does that matter? In fact, this appears to be an additional confirmation, a plus. It seems to demonstrate that this was a standard reply which means it wasn't a off the top of a head remark, but likely one researched out and prepared, so it's somewhat semi-official if so.

First of all, Cal, there's no proof that it was a "Watson letter".

Second, how many "standard replies" about Book of Mormon geography do you know of in 1990? Or before?

Would the First Presidency send out a "standard reply" which contradicted every known statement on Book of Mormon geography by all past presidents of the Church?

How naïve are you, Cal?

[_Nimrod]

Maybe DCP et al. will bite off on this preposterous concoction from my always-zany, fevered mind:

The morning of 4/23/1993, at the direction of Bill Hamblin, Brent Hall of FARMS phones Michael Watson, Secretary to FP, and the conversation ensues as is retold in the Brent Hall Cover (http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon ... _page_scan).

Hanging up the phone, Watson instructs FP staffer Carla Ogden to send a fax page to Brent Hall, with the boilerplate about LDS doctrine not including Book of Mormon geography.

Ogden prepares and sends the fax to Brent Hall at 12:25 PM. Greg Smith notes "that there was a bit at the very top that had that 'where did the fax come from' printing in faint letters that didn't scan well. It reads 'Apr 23 '93 12:25 PM FIRST PRESIDENCY SLC P.1'. I've added this to the transcript." http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208771829. Rather than scan/copy the Carla Ogden Fax darker so that the fax provenance would appear in the scan, Smith just adds the text of what he can see, but doesn't appear on the face of the scan he uploaded to FAIRwiki.

Hall marches the fax received at FARMS into Bill Hamblin's office. http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon ... etter_scan. Hamblin quickly notes that this fax is inadequate. Not on FP letterhead. Not from Watson. Not even signed by the sender. Hamblin telephones Watson, and asks for the same text to be included on FP letterhead and be signed. Watson who was too busy to do so himself earlier in the day and delegated the initial assignment to staffer Ogden, that afternoon is able to get the letter out in the way Hamblin wants, and it too is then faxed to Hamblin.

Brent Hall then is asked to forward this 2nd Watson letter to someone, and Brent Hall types out a quick cover letter to a person not named in the cover letter.

"Bill Hamblin received a letter, I [DCP] supposed (and still suppose) in response to something from him. It came from Michael Watson, in the office of the First Presidency. We cited the text in toto in the FARMS Review. Bill subsequently lost his copy of the letter." http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208771813

Nevertheless, somehow the Brent Hall cover is filed away by Hamblin with the 12:25 PM fax from FP staffer Ogden, to be found together 15+ years later.

Voila. There it is. There you have it.
********************************
--wow--I should either be writing fiction, or maybe my spin abilities (as demonstrated above) make me a talent to be sought out by FARMS. I could handle these easy ones for DCP, the ones he's not interested in figuring out, but finds worth repeatedly protesting are non-issues, which do not matter to him.

'Walk like an Egyptian', spin like a Mopologist!

[_Nimrod]

On MAD, mfbukowski notes (http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208772515)

Some secretary writes a letter of no importance and little note

That accurately describes the Carla Ogden Fax. At least outside the context of FARMS. What is intriguing is that FARMS spun it up into being a '2nd Watson letter' that contradicted the 1st Watson letter, gave FARMS back 'room' for its Meso America theory of Book of Mormon happenings, was so represented by Bill Hamblin in a featured article, but could not be located by FARMS for 15+ years.

It was a 'letter of no importance and little note', as mfbukowski said. But for FARMS it supposedly gave their apologetic exercise a new lease on life. For FARMS, it was and is critically important. For critics, the FARMS handling of this brings to mind the bungling Keystone Cops.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

My best guess---in line with what Gad said earlier---is that the apologists managed to get this fax from Sis. Ogden, and then they bent the truth in print and on the messageboards in order to make it seem like it had the same authority as the 1st Watson Letter.

I used to give DCP the benefit of the doubt as to his claim that the so-called 2nd Watson Letter actually exists; no more -- this latest debacle from the FARMSboys has convinced me that DCP and Hamblin have been lying all along about the 2nd Watson Letter. I guess I shouldn't be surprised ....

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Everyone,

Let us do a quick recap of the events that transpired:

1) A 1st Watson Letter of some sort does, indeed, exist since there exists a scanned copy of it on the Internet. However, whether it is an authentically produced letter from Mr. Watson is unconfirmed. Frankly, it could be a hoax just as easily as it could be an authentic memorandum.

2) The purported 2nd Watson Letter has not been produced as of yet. Once it is produced we still have the problem of authenticity. We do not know if it will be a Ratherian hoax perpetrated by Maxwell Institute zealots, or some like-minded individual.

3) We have not seen the Hamblin Query Letter which would shed some light on these events.

4) Past attempts to seek proof from Dr. Peterson's colleagues reference copies of the 2nd Watson Letter, by interested members and skeptics alike, at the behest of Dr. Peterson, have produced precisely zero responses. His rather callous suggestion to seek a response from his colleagues was a truly vindictive and bitter ruse foisted upon well-intentioned people.

5) Mr. Greg Smith boasts on the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion board (MAD&B) that he has a copy of the much talked about 2nd Watson Letter being mailed to him.

6) Some 15 days later Mr. Smith posts a link to the purported 2nd Watson Letter, and lo and behold it is not only not the 2nd Watson Letter, but simply facsmile cover sheet possibly belonging to a Mrs. Carla Ogden.

7) The now infamous Ogden Document reeks of Ratherian duplicity. There are incomplete facsimile and telephone numbers listed. The Header looks like a crudely put together Word document (notice the Ratherian Times New Roman font). And the coupe de grace: The rebuttal is actually listed on the facsimile transmission form!

8) There is no signature on the Ogden Document. There is no signature block. There is nothing on the Ogden Document that would suggest who the author of the Convenient Rebuttal is!

I can only surmise at this point that Dr. Peterson has, yet again, lied.


Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Nimrod]

Hi, Dr CamNC4Me,

Thanks for stepping back and giving readers a forest rather than trees recap. I have a few comments:

1) A 1st Watson Letter of some sort does, indeed, exist since there exists a scanned copy of it on the Internet. However, whether it is an authentically produced letter from Mr. Watson is unconfirmed. Frankly, it could be a hoax just as easily as it could be an authentic memorandum.

FARMS would have little motivation to suppose rather than question the authenticity of the 1st Watson Letter. If FARMS had reason to question its authenticity that would no doubt be the route that its motivations would lead it. There comes to mind one notion that even having reason to doubt the authenticity of the 1st Watson Letter that FARMS would not attack its authenticity. That would be to set the 1st Watson Letter up as a strawman argument to then knock it down, with a 'see, I told ya so' smirk on the collective FARMS face. To me, the strawman argument doesn't fit because it only works when the authority you have to rebut it is at least as strong or stronger so that you squash the strawman with the rebuttal authority. The 1st Watson Letter has much more authority than the Carla Ogden Fax/'2nd Watson Letter'. So, I am of the opinion that FARMS does not question the provenance of the 1st Watson Letter.

2) The purported 2nd Watson Letter has not been produced as of yet. Once it is produced we still have the problem of authenticity. We do not know if it will be a Ratherian hoax perpetrated by Maxwell Institute zealots, or some like-minded individual.

Not unless the Carla Ogden Fax is what Hamblin, DCP and other FARMers have touted all these many years as the '2nd Watson Letter'. Ergo, why the Carla Ogden Fax was kept under wraps all these years.

3) We have not seen the Hamblin Query Letter which would shed some light on these events.

No doubt it would shed light, as you say. Unless again what is retold in the Brent Hill Cover to some nameless soul about Hill have spoken by phone with F. Michael Watson and then came the '2nd Watson Letter' has also been blurred to be the Hamblin request of Watson for clarification.

4) Past attempts to seek proof from Dr. Peterson's colleagues reference copies of the 2nd Watson Letter, by interested members and skeptics alike, at the behest of Dr. Peterson, have produced precisely zero responses. His rather callous suggestion to seek a response from his colleagues was a truly vindictive and bitter ruse foisted upon well-intentioned people.

There is something inhibiting the FARMerS from asking the First Presidency office to issue a new clarification letter. Regardless of whether there is a '2nd Watson Letter' other than the Carla Ogden Fax, a shiny new letter from the First Presidency about there being no specific Book of Mormon geography as part of LDS doctrine would give FARMS a new lease on life and allow any shenanigans in Hamblin's 1993 piece and since to fade out. So why the reluctance of the FARMerS to ask the First Presidency for such a shiny, new letter? Do they like the plausible deniability for the First Presidency that there is no specific Book of Mormon geography in LDS doctrine (per the Carla Ogden Fax) and that the 1st Watson Letter says Cumorah is in New York state? Do the FARMerS fear that a new clarification would reiterate the 1st Watson Letter that Cumorah is in New York state? Do they not want to draw the Brethren's attention to Hamblin's 1993 claim that has unofficially been bandied about by the FARMerS since? Has the First Presidency adopted a policy not to answer questions from FARMerS?

5) Mr. Greg Smith boasts on the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion board (MAD&B) that he has a copy of the much talked about 2nd Watson Letter being mailed to him.

Matt Roper no doubt led Dr. Smith to make this boast before he had seen the letter with his own eyes, at the time Roper promised he was mailing a copy to Dr. Smith.

6) Some 15 days later Mr. Smith posts a link to the purported 2nd Watson Letter, and lo and behold it is not only not the 2nd Watson Letter, but simply facsmile cover sheet possibly belonging to a Mrs. Carla Ogden.

Not unless in FARMerS logic,

Carla Ogden Fax = '2nd Watson Letter'

7) The now infamous Ogden Document reeks of Ratherian duplicity. There are incomplete facsimile and telephone numbers listed. The Header looks like a crudely put together Word document (notice the Ratherian Times New Roman font). And the coupe de grace: The rebuttal is actually listed on the facsimile transmission form!

Dr. Smith explains that it was he who excised the phone and fax numbers so that the Office of the First Presidency would not be pestered. Dr. Smith also explains that he could see on the copy from Roper, but we cannot see from the scan he uploaded to the FAIRwiki, the fax provenance showing the fax having been sent at 12:25 PM on 4/23/1993 from the Office of the Presidency. I think Dr. Smith ought to set his scanner to a darker setting to pick up that fax provenance and then upload a replacement that clearly shows it. It's not that difficult to do.

8) There is no signature on the Ogden Document. There is no signature block. There is nothing on the Ogden Document that would suggest who the author of the Convenient Rebuttal is!

Indeed.

I can only surmise at this point that Dr. Peterson has, yet again, lied.

While I must admit that I delight in DCP's squirming, and feigned dismissals that this issue is of no importance to him, I'm not quite to the point of painting our Benevolent Oppressor on the Rah-Rah Board (a.k.a. MAD) as a liar on this one.