Welcome question for Mr. Peterson: Where is the stone box?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I say, go with the first Watson letter until you see the second.

Agreed.

[Guest]

Anyway, all of us know where the entire text of the letter is to be found.

Unfortunately, the text can't be found in the "mislaid" letter, which is the problem.

So can I count you in as, at least half-heartedly, a member of the group (Scratch and Scratch, or, possibly, Scratch and "Ref") that suspects possible fraud here?

Contact Michael Watson.

Think of the glory that will be yours when you publicly destroy the reputations of both Dan Peterson and Bill Hamblin, and reveal us for the lying forgers that we are. (Poor Scratch. It could have been his.)

Incidentally, it would be easy to publish a fake image of a First Presidency letter, too. Where there's a will, there's an easily accessible way.

Your only path to certainty is direct forensic analysis of the original letter (if it still exists and you can locate it), coupled with extensive interviews of all the people involved, both in Provo and in the Church Office Building in Salt Lake City, analysis of employment logs (if they exist), thorough investigation of the postmark on the envelope (if it can be found). Other tests, such as pollen analysis and fingerprinting, examination of type fonts, and the like, would also be necessary. And, even after such research, will you ever attain to absolute certainty? Perhaps it's all a giant conspiracy . . .

[_Jason Bourne]

Well well well, I thought you bid us all farewell yesterday?

I did.

And the significance of that, in your mind, is . . . what, exactly?

You said you had a few things to clear up and that you were finished. Oh, I see now you are being a Dan'apoligist? Yesterday you implied you were done posting here, but old Scratch caught you! So you slink back and now you must contort your own statement to keep from looking like a complete buffoon.

Admit it Dan, message boards are like PORNO for you and your mo'pologetic ego.

Nothing gives you a bigger rise than being able to beat your garment covered chest while your wannabees stand in line to kiss your ass.

Admit it, you have been Scratched over here in Shady Acres.

A new avatar for you would be a picture of the statue of Joseph Smith that you crapped when Scratch beat you.

PP

Why don't you back off jerk. Let Peterson post and stop your harASS ment you big oaf! If you cannot echange civilly then shut your big MOUTH.

[_Mister Scratch]

For me, what this all boils down to is this. I can go to the Tanner's website, and I can look at a scan of the 1st Watson Letter. I know, further, that if the Tanners had only supplied the text of this 1st Letter, that there is no way---by any measure---that the Mopologists and their ilk would have accepted a mere transcription of the text as legit evidence. And yet, this is precisely what all of us are expected to do with the 2nd Letter. The bottom line is that Profs. P & B are holding to a double-standard (they expect to be given more leeway then they would ever extend to their critics), and that just doesn't seem fair/right to me. Just my .02.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

So can I count you in as, at least half-heartedly, a member of the group (Scratch and Scratch, or, possibly, Scratch and "Ref") that suspects possible fraud here?

Not at all. If a copy is ever located, I expect it to say as you claim. But the fact a document, cited by Hamblin in your journal and which is still relied upon by him and you, seems not to exist (either the original or copy), is odd.

Contact Michael Watson.

I've never relied on the 2nd letter. You and Hamblin have. So you contact Watson.

Think of the glory that will be yours when you publicly destroy the reputations of both Dan Peterson and Bill Hamblin, and reveal us for the lying forgers that we are. (Poor Scratch. It could have been his.)

Never my intent or expectation.

Incidentally, it would be easy to publish a fake image of a First Presidency letter, too. Where there's a will, there's an easily accessible way.

And this changes what, exactly?

Your only path to certainty is direct forensic analysis of the original letter (if it still exists and you can locate it), coupled with extensive interviews of all the people involved, both in Provo and in the Church Office Building in Salt Lake City, analysis of employment logs (if they exist), thorough investigation of the postmark on the envelope (if it can be found). Other tests, such as pollen analysis and fingerprinting, examination of type fonts, and the like, would also be necessary. And, even after such research, will you ever attain to absolute certainty? Perhaps it's all a giant conspiracy . . .

Just find a copy of the letter, and I'd be happy.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So can I count you in as, at least half-heartedly, a member of the group (Scratch and Scratch, or, possibly, Scratch and "Ref") that suspects possible fraud here?

But the fact a document, cited by Hamblin in your journal and which is still relied upon by him and you, seems not to exist (either the original or copy), is odd.

I think it's unfortunate, too. It opens us up to the accusation, made, thus far, by both Scratch and Scratch (or, just possibly, by both Scratch and somebody else called "Ref") on a message board with an audience in the teens, that the letter never existed.

I wish Bill hadn't misplaced it. But I can't really condemn him, since I myself am sahib of perhaps the two most disorderly offices on the planet. My principle is, Never find something just once when you can find it at least a dozen times (if you can find it at all).

I've never relied on the 2nd letter. You and Hamblin have. So you contact Watson.

If serious doubts about the existence of the letter ever become a significant issue -- so far, they haven't even spread to a demonstrably existent second person beyond the maleficent Scratch -- and particularly if doing so would make any real discernible difference (which it plainly wouldn't in Scratch's case), I'll consider pestering Michael Watson.

Incidentally, it would be easy to publish a fake image of a First Presidency letter, too. Where there's a will, there's an easily accessible way.

And this changes what, exactly?

It means that, even had we published an image of the purported letter, or even if we were to publish one at some time in the future, we would still be liable to charges, from determined slanderers of the Scratch mode, of having doctored or forged the thing. And we would be unable to prove, beyond any possibility of doubt, that we hadn't, because doing so would, in fact, be quite easy. If one assumes that we have both the chutzpah and the bad character to forge the content of a letter from the First Presidency, why would one choose to believe that we would balk at forging the appearance of one?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

It means that, even had we published an image of the purported letter, or even if we were to publish one at some time in the future, we would still be liable to charges, from determined slanderers of the Scratch mode, of having doctored or forged the thing. And we would be unable to prove, beyond any possibility of doubt, that we hadn't, because doing so would, in fact, be quite easy. If one assumes that we have both the chutzpah and the bad character to forge the content of a letter from the First Presidency, why would one choose to believe that we would balk at forging the appearance of one?

I think you're being a bit paranoid. I don't know of anyone who has seriously challenged the authenticity of the copy of the 1st Watson letter shown on the Tanners' site.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think you're being a bit paranoid. I don't know of anyone who has seriously challenged the authenticity of the copy of the 1st Watson letter shown on the Tanners' site.

My point, of course, is that they have no more reason to trust the Tanners' representation of the first Watson letter than they have to trust the quotation of the second Watson letter as it appeared in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. The former would have been very nearly as easy to fake as the latter.

Scratch and Scratch don't question the first letter because it coheres neatly with their agenda. We Mopologist hacks don't question the first letter precisely because we're not that paranoid.

Scratch (perhaps seconded by Scratch) questions the authenticity of the second letter because it furthers his agenda to do so.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

My point, of course, is that they have no more reason to trust the Tanners' representation of the first Watson letter than they have to trust the quotation of the second Watson letter as it appeared in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. The former would have been very nearly as easy to fake as the latter.

I see the two very differently. If someone quotes the 1st Watson letter, we can actually see and read the letter. We can't do that with the missing 2nd Watson letter. Do you know of anyone who has even claimed that the 1st Watson letter on the Tanners' website is a forgery? I don't.

[_Brackite]

Just so that you can relax a bit, Brackite, let me respond very briefly:

I'm aware of Professor Ritner's opinion. The mere fact that he holds an opinion, though, doesn't mean that I have to agree with it. And the mere fact that he holds an opinion doesn't make his opinion right.

That said, this subject doesn't rank among my top one hundred interests.

Hi! Well Daniel, I don't have to believe that the Book of Breathings Papyrus was really about 320 cm long (and contained the text of the Book of Abraham), instead of about 150 cm long, like you want me and all the LDS People to believe. But even if the Book of Breathings text was really 320 cm long (which I don't believe by the way), what are the chances that it would contain the text of the Book of Abraham? The chances that it would contain the text to the Book of Abraham is about 1 in 1,000,000,000. The Following is from Book of Abraham LDS Apologist Paul O.:

I think it’s quite safe for people to assume that funerary documents never contain stories that are victoriously antagonistic towards the gods of Egypt! If John Gee can provide an example of that caliber then perhaps his point has merit. This business about a sacrifice on an altar described in the Vandier papyrus is nothing more than a scholarly trick to appease the less informed. Does the story pit two ancient religions (Israel & Egyptian) against each other?

It is Egyptologically incorrect to suggest that the Book of Abraham could be found on a religous scroll containing sacred spells and images of the Egyptian gods. Shall we put the Koran on the altars of the Mormon temple? Shall we include a chapter of Charles Larson's book in the covers of the Doctrine & Covenants?

I contend that funerary scrolls would not have contained a story that tells about Jehovah slaying an Egyptian priest and overthrowing the gods of Egypt. I think John Gee has pushed this little example too far. He is comparing apples with oranges and too many people have fallen for it.

( http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=136 )

Well, despite what the LDS Apologists Daniel Peterson and John Gee wanting virtually all the LDS People to believe that the Book of Breathings scroll contained the text of the Book of Abraham on it, the chances of that is zilch to zero to nada to none to absolutely nothing

.