2nd Watson Letter just found!'

[_beastie]

First, I have to say it was funny to watch Scott throw a new pooh-ball. He was offended that Brent referred to Watson as “Mike.” OMG, where is the respect for office???? Of course, Brent informing Scott that Watson is a long-time family friend put Scott’s pooh-ball in its place.

I still don’t believe there’s a “real” formal Watson letter sent to Hamblin. It introduces an unnecessary step. At the time Hall received the letter he was “office manager” at FARMS. Why in the world would Watson feel it necessary to send a direct communication to Hamblin after having his secretary send a fax to Hall, which Hall then shared? But that part really doesn’t matter, in my opinion. In fact, in a way, the critics’ case would be even stronger if Watson really did feel the need to take that extra step. It’s like he felt he had to “report” directly to Hamblin regarding the issue, that a fax sent to the FARMS office manager wasn’t enough.

Note: I am NOT saying DCP and Hamblin are lying. Human memory is incredibly fallible and subject to retroactive editing. If the “communication” was always referred to as a “letter from Watson”, it is entirely normal for their memories to morph to accommodate that. It doesn’t matter if DCP thinks he’s “always” remembered it like that. Human memory works that way. It’s unreliable. And no one is accusing DCP of dementia. Human memory is fallible no matter the age, but, of course, age does aggravate the situation, and that has nothing to do with dementia. DCP is exaggerating what has been said about him in this episode. Most critics have simply been asserting his memory is probably faulty, and that there is some reason he is downplaying the influence apologists have on the brethren.


To me, this all boils down to two things: critics have repeatedly asserted that the recent trend has been for apologists to influence the brethren. Apologists have repeatedly denied this and downplayed their relationship to the brethren at all. The details of this episode have unraveled over years, and it’s only due to the persistence and memory of certain posters, like Brent, that we’re able to finally piece it together.

1. Watson sends a letter affirming that the brethren have long held that Hill Cumorah is in New York. This is a true statement. That is the long-held view of church leaders.
2. Critics use this letter to undermine apologetic efforts to insist that there are two Cumorahs, and one is in Mesoamerica.
3. FARMS (perhaps Hamblin) contacted Watson and told him he made a mistake. Watson said “oops.”
4. Watson then instructs his secretary, Carla Ogden, to send a fax correcting the mistake, using almost the exact language from the EoM.
5. (optional, contested, fairly irrelevant point) Watson also sends a formal, signed letter directly to Hamblin saying the same thing as the fax.

These points are uncontested by any party, as far as I know, now that Brent has shared the past discussions on this point. It is the significance of these events that is contested and unrecognized by some posters.

Here’s how I understand the significance as a critic: there has been a years-long (if not decades-long) debate between critics and apologists regarding how much influence apologists have on “the brethren”. Apologists have consistently minimized their influence and have asserted they have very little interaction with the brethren on these issues at all. This episode seems to provide support for the critics’ assertion, which is that the influence of apologists has been growing since the advent of the internet ensured that more members would have contact with controversial or troubling issues facing church claims. in my opinion, the reason apologists have downplayed their influence is due to the fact that one of the foundational claims of the LDS church is that the church is run by revelation. Church leaders have historically been dismissive of “so-called intellectuals and scholars” even within the church (see Packer). Only apostate churches that aren’t led directly by revelation from Christ himself would need “so-called intellectuals and scholars” to tell them what to believe. In other words, I think apologists have downplayed their influence because recognizing their growing influence makes the LDS church look more like other churches and less like the “One True Church” run by revelation.

[_beastie]

I'm considering posting that explanation on MAD for hamba and MF, if I can find my password. As much as I dislike posting at MAD, it is probably hard for newcomers to this strange little world to understand what all the hooha is about.

[_harmony]

First, I have to say it was funny to watch Scott throw a new pooh-ball. He was offended that Brent referred to Watson as “Mike.” OMG, where is the respect for office???? Of course, Brent informing Scott that Watson is a long-time family friend put Scott’s pooh-ball in its place.

What? Brent has friends? In high places? Say it ain't so!

I still don’t believe there’s a “real” formal Watson letter sent to Hamblin. It introduces an unnecessary step. At the time Hall received the letter he was “office manager” at FARMS. Why in the world would Watson feel it necessary to send a direct communication to Hamblin after having his secretary send a fax to Hall, which Hall then shared? But that part really doesn’t matter, in my opinion. In fact, in a way, the critics’ case would be even stronger if Watson really did feel the need to take that extra step. It’s like he felt he had to “report” directly to Hamblin regarding the issue, that a fax sent to the FARMS office manager wasn’t enough.

So... no letterhead, no signature. Just a fax with no provence.

Note: I am NOT saying DCP and Hamblin are lying. Human memory is incredibly fallible and subject to retroactive editing. If the “communication” was always referred to as a “letter from Watson”, it is entirely normal for their memories to morph to accommodate that. It doesn’t matter if DCP thinks he’s “always” remembered it like that. Human memory works that way. It’s unreliable. And no one is accusing DCP of dementia. Human memory is fallible no matter the age, but, of course, age does aggravate the situation, and that has nothing to do with dementia. DCP is exaggerating what has been said about him in this episode. Most critics have simply been asserting his memory is probably faulty, and that there is some reason he is downplaying the influence apologists have on the brethren.

Dan will never allow this. 1) it puts him in the same boat as any other ordinary person, and takes away from his elite scholar status ("But Professor Peterson, I already turned in that paper! Did you forget, or is it lost in your office like the 2nd Watson letter?"), and 2) if he acknowledges that human memory is fallible, and that he is misremembering seeing a signed letter on letterhead, then it's easier for the critics to attack the whole witnesses thing on which he bases his faith in the Book of Mormon.

To me, this all boils down to two things: critics have repeatedly asserted that the recent trend has been for apologists to influence the brethren. Apologists have repeatedly denied this and downplayed their relationship to the brethren at all. The details of this episode have unraveled over years, and it’s only due to the persistence and memory of certain posters, like Brent, that we’re able to finally piece it together.

1. Watson sends a letter affirming that the brethren have long held that Hill Cumorah is in New York. This is a true statement. That is the long-held view of church leaders.
2. Critics use this letter to undermine apologetic efforts to insist that there are two Cumorahs, and one is in Mesoamerica.
3. FARMS (perhaps Hamblin) contacted Watson and told him he made a mistake. Watson said “oops.”
4. Watson then instructs his secretary, Carla Ogden, to send a fax correcting the mistake, using almost the exact language from the EoM.
5. (optional, contested, fairly irrelevant point) Watson also sends a formal, signed letter directly to Hamblin saying the same thing as the fax.

These points are uncontested by any party, as far as I know, now that Brent has shared the past discussions on this point. It is the significance of these events that is contested and unrecognized by some posters.

Here’s how I understand the significance as a critic: there has been a years-long (if not decades-long) debate between critics and apologists regarding how much influence apologists have on “the brethren”. Apologists have consistently minimized their influence and have asserted they have very little interaction with the brethren on these issues at all. This episode seems to provide support for the critics’ assertion, which is that the influence of apologists has been growing since the advent of the internet ensured that more members would have contact with controversial or troubling issues facing church claims. in my opinion, the reason apologists have downplayed their influence is due to the fact that one of the foundational claims of the LDS church is that the church is run by revelation. Church leaders have historically been dismissive of “so-called intellectuals and scholars” even within the church (see Packer). Only apostate churches that aren’t led directly by revelation from Christ himself would need “so-called intellectuals and scholars” to tell them what to believe. In other words, I think apologists have downplayed their influence because recognizing their growing influence makes the LDS church look more like other churches and less like the “One True Church” run by revelation.

A fine summary, Trix. You've scraped off all the bluster and misdirection to pinpoint the problem.

Perhaps this is just one more instance of "lying for the Lord", a time honored LDS tradition.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

5. (optional, contested, fairly irrelevant point) Watson also sends a formal, signed letter directly to Hamblin saying the same thing as the fax.

Hello Madame,

I would disagree with you reference this being an irrelevant point. We can see that Dr. Peterson was simply lying about the existence of this letter, and continues to do so this day. In other words, an apologist was making up an apocryphal statement about a document that would reinforce his doctrinal assertion vis a vis the Hill Cumorah. There never was a 2nd Watson Letter as evidenced by the Odgen Facsimile. The Ogden Facsimile is just that... A facsimile of a cover letter. The 2nd Watson letter, as described by Dr. Peterson simply doesn't exist.

How is this important? Witness this please:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumorah

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)—the largest of the Latter Day Saint churches that use the Book of Mormon—has no official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon, nor is there currently any official claim of correspondence between the hill mentioned in the Book of Mormon and the hill in New York.[4]

^ [1], Correspondence from F. Michael Watson, 23 April 1993, Cited with commentary in William J. Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (1993): 161–197, accessed 13 September 2009. See also Book of Mormon geography/Statements/First Presidency Letter on the FAIR LDS Wiki

Which then is linked to:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements/First_Presidency_Letter

There is deliberate deception involved with this apologetic material. For all the reasons as listed by the various posters here the Odgen Fax has been an astonishingly inept step by Mormon apologists, and revealed the truly mendicious nature of Dr. Peterson and his colleagues. That, my lady, is the crux of Mormon apologetic issue and this particular episode has established, step by step, the manner and efforts through which Mormon apologists execute their deceptions.

Until the 2nd Watson Letter is produced and examined I can only say this whole affair is indisputable proof of Mormon apologists being 1) liars, and 2) myth peddlers. This is undeniable as evidenced by the, well, evidence, Madame.


Very Respectfully,
Doctor CamNC4Me

[_beastie]

I would disagree with you reference this being an irrelevant point. We can see that Dr. Peterson was simply lying about the existence of this letter, and continues to do so this day. In other words, an apologist was making up an apocryphal statement about a document that would reinforce his doctrinal assertion vis a vis the Hill Cumorah. There never was a 2nd Watson Letter as evidenced by the Odgen Facsimile. The Ogden Facsimile is just that... A facsimile of a cover letter. The 2nd Watson letter, as described by Dr. Peterson simply doesn't exist.

I agree that it is unlikely that the 2nd Watson letter exists, however, I strongly disagree that this means that DCP was simply lying. The foible of human memory itself is more than sufficient explanation for that discrepancy.

There is deliberate deception involved with this apologetic material. For all the reasons as listed by the various posters here the Odgen Fax has been an astonishingly inept step by Mormon apologists, and revealed the truly mendicious nature of Dr. Peterson and his colleagues. That, my lady, is the crux of Mormon apologetic issue and this particular episode has established, step by step, the manner and efforts through which Mormon apologists execute their deceptions.

Until the 2nd Watson Letter is produced and examined I can only say this whole affair is indisputable proof of Mormon apologists being 1) liars, and 2) myth peddlers. This is undeniable as evidenced by the, well, evidence, Madame.

Absolutely this demonstrates that FARMS is simply using itself as a reference, but, again, this does not demonstrate deliberate mendacity. I think it is likely that DCP honestly believes there is a 2nd, now lost, Watson letter, as does Hamblin. Being certain one’s memory is accurate has no correlation to the actual accuracy of the memory.

A while ago I posted something fairly lengthy about the unreliability of human memory. I’ll see if I can dig that up, because it had detailed examples of that unreliability coupled with certainty that the respective subjects’ memories were accurate.

[_beastie]

by the way, I do agree that this episode is a good demonstration of the incompetence on the part of some apologists. I also agree that this is a long pattern, as seen by Sorenson and Nibley. Carelessness with sources seems to be par for the course in many apologists. But I don't believe that this incompetence must necessitate deliberate dishonesty. Deliberate dishonesty is an unnecessary accusation when simple incompetence and fallibility is more than adequate as an explanation. I don't like adding unnecessary steps.

[_beastie]

From “On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You’re Not” by Robert A. Burton:

The Challenger Study

Try to remember where you were when Kennedy was assassinated, the Challenger blew up, or the World Trade Center was attacked. Now ask yourself how certain you are of those memories. If you believe that you are quite sure of where you were when you heard the news, keep that feeling in mind as you read about the Challengerstudy in the next pages. If you don’t remember where you were, ask yourself how you know that you don’t remember. (Keep in mind the blindsight example when asking this question.) Either way, try to understand the feeling and your degree of certainty of this memory.

At my most recent med school reunion dinner, several former classmates were recalling where they were when Kennedy was assassinated. We had been in the second year of medical school, which meant that we all went to the same classes. Wherever one was, we probably all were. But the recollections were strikingly different; after dinner the discussion was becoming increasingly heated, as though each classmate’s mind was on trial. A urologist thought we were at lunch, an internist said we were in the lab. A pathologist remembered being at a pub down the street from the med center. “That can’t be true,” the urologist said. “The assassination was at noon, Dallas time. You didn’t go to bars ‘til after class.”

I laughed and briefly described the Challenger study.

Within one day of the space shuttle Challenger explosion, Ulric Neisser, a psychologist studying “flashbulb” memories (the recall of high dramatic events), asked his class of 106 students to write down exactly how they’d heard about the explosion, where they were, what they’d been doing, and how they felt. Two and a half years later they were again interviewed. Twenty-five percent of the students’ subsequent accounts were strikingly different than their original journal entries. More than half the people had lesser degrees of error, and less than ten percent had all the details correct. (Prior to seeing their original journals, most students presumed that their memories were correct.)

Most of us reluctantly admit that memory changes over time. As kids, we saw how a story changed with retellings around a campfire. We have been at enough family reunions to hear once-familiar events morphed into unrecognizable and often contradictory descriptions. So, seeing that your journal entries were different than your recollection a couple years later shouldn’t be surprising. What startled me about the Challenger study were the students’ responses when confronted with their conflicting accounts. Many expressed a high level of confidence that their false recollections were correct, despite being confronted with their own handwritten journals. The most unnerving was one student’s comment, “That’s my handwriting, but that’s not what happened.”

Why wouldn’t the students consider their journal entries written shortly after the event to be more accurate than a recollection pulled up several years later? Pride, stubbornness, or fear of admitting an error? Not remembering the details of the Challenger explosion doesn’t imply some massive personal failing that would make resistance to contrary evidence so overwhelming. Conversely, wouldn’t pride in being logical and rational steer the students toward choosing their own handwriting over memories that they know might have been altered with time?

The inflamed urologist interrupted me, insisting the pathologist concede he was wrong. The pathologist refused, turned to me, and said, “You tell them, Burton. You were there in the bar with me.”

“Beats me. I just don’t remember.”

“That’s not possible,” the two warring doctors said simultaneously. “Everyone remembers the Kennedy assassination.”

I shrugged and silently marveled at the vehemence of my classmates’ convictions. Even telling them of the Challenger study persuaded no one, as though they were intent upon reproducing the very study that questioned their recollections. All felt that they were right, that they absolutely knew where they were and what they were doing when Kennedy was assassinated.

Cognitive Dissonance

In 1957, Standford professor of social psychology Leon Festinger introduced the term cognitive dissonance to describe the distressing mental state in which people “find themselves doing things that don’t fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold.” In a series of clever experiments, Festinger demonstrated that such tensions were more often minimized or resolved through changes in personal attitudes than by relinquishing the dissonant belief or opinion.

As an example, Festinger and his associates described a cult that believed the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood. When the flood did not happen, those less involved with the cult were more inclined to recognize that they had been wrong. The more invested members who had given up their homes and jobs to work for the cult were more likely to reinterpret the evidence to show they were right all along, but the earth was not destroyed because of their faithfulness.

Festinger’s seminal observation: The more committed we are to a belief, the harder it is to relinquish, even in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence. Instead of acknowledging an error in judgment and abandoning the opinion, we tend to develop a new attitude or belief that will justify retaining it. By giving us a model to consider how we deal with conflicting values, the theory of cognitive dissonance has become one of the most influential theories in social psychology. Yet it fails to convincingly answer why it is so difficult to relinquish unreasonable opinions, especially in light of seemingly convincing contrary evidence. It is easy to dismiss such behavior in cult members and others “on the fringe”, but what about those of us who presume ourselves to be less flaky, those of us who pride ourselves on being levelheaded and reasonable?

Pages 10 -12

The rest of the book is an attempt to provide more answers in regards to why it is so difficult to relinquish unreasonable opinions, aside from cognitive dissonance. His theory is that “knowing” is not necessarily the result of analyzing facts and obtaining information, but rather a process that takes place below our level of awareness, which creates a ‘feeling of knowing’, for which we obligingly then provide facts to support.

[_harmony]

...
---Apologists Getting Paid

Have I accused wrongly? Is not the Maxwell institute staff now under BYU's payroll? Have they not all had to sign the Honor Code?

Yes, they are on the payroll (at least some of them are). However, whether or not they are paid for their apologetics is a hotly contested issue that is far from resolution. They're paid for their research, their teaching load, their administrative duties, but the jury is still out as to whether or not they're paid to post on message boards, engage in apologetics, or generally make asses of themselves. Many think they do the latter (especially the latter latter) as a hobby.

[_beastie]

DCP, as shared by scratch:

Because they're trying to defend themselves against potential attack -- protesting a bit too much, in my view, since nobody that I know has ever accused them of actually forging evidence -- and also because they favor a manner of presentation (rather like that of Robert and Rosemary Brown on the other side) that often includes photocopies of documents.

By contrast, like the standard academic journals and books that form the background of its editors and publishers and the large majority of its writers, the presentation-style or format of the FARMS Review virtually never features photocopies of documents. (If we've ever included such a photocopy, I can't remember it off hand.) Moreover, in the world in which the Review's editors, publishers, and writers live, while books and articles cite correspondence from time to time, the presumption is always that the cited correspondence actually exists and has been accurately transcribed. Accusations of gross transcription errors or deliberate falsification are extremely rare; accusations of deliberate wholesale forgery are virtually unknown, and the career of any scholar who would do such a thing would come to an immediate, catastrophic, and humiiating end.

I demonstrated that Sorenson used two sources in a fallacious manner. In one, he claimed that the source made a statement that it simply did not make, at all. In the second, the source made a claim but Sorenson omitted the date in question, which did not provide support for his claims.

Would DCP assert that his career should rightfully come to an end?

Given the track record of apologists and footnotes, perhaps we should all demand photocopy proof of the source.

[_SoHo]

Did OJ's lawyers really believe him to be innocent? The role of mopologist is to be defense attorney for the validity of Mormon claims. The standard seems to be to keep the door open on plausibility - however that needs to be accomplished - whether by shifting goal posts, diverting attention from real issues, ad hominem attacks, making mountains out of molehills, shifting the burden, etc. Defending a position does not necessitate personally holding that opinion. Success is in the ultimate convincing of others that the position is defensible, not in the quality and honesty of the methods employed to achieve that goal.

Their's is a battle - not an objective search for objective truth. I suspect many don't really buy into what they peddle.