2nd Watson Letter just found!'

[_Nimrod]

Nimrod,

I'm so glad that you were following the insanity and tried to help me understand MF's point. For the life of me, I simply have not been able to successfully follow him. My latest idea was that perhaps he never accepted the Watson letter OR the Ogden fax as speaking for the FP, and that's why he sees no inconsistency. Did you see his latest, where he rejected my newspaper analogy because the "real" editor hadn't spoken? That's what gave me the idea that maybe he simply did not accept the Watson OR Ogden correspondences as authoritatively speaking for the FP in the first place.

And what do you make of the insistence of some posters that the scripture guide attached to the online scriptures doesn't have any more authority than any other writing????

I had forgotten how MADdening these conversations tend to be.

Hey, beastie,

I have seen mfb's most recent postings. Unbelievable. I agree he does not see Watson (or Ogden) as speaking for "the Church". Professor Dan a few days ago posted to the effect that Watson could not set policy in 1990, as he was not even a general authority then. (Of course, Watson wrote that it was the Brethren's position and he was writing a response for them, but Professor Dan just went right by that, so it is particularly easy for mfb to do so.) mfb does not even grant that Brigham Young, when prophet, spoke "for the Church".

I think it is amazing that they will give unquestionable deference as definitive evidence of Church doctrine to
1-an Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry written by an apologist, not an ecclesiastical, and quoting only other apologetic written sources,
2-an unsigned letter by an executive secretary, and
3-a 1993 (or pre-1985) letter from Watson that no one can produce a facsimile of,

but are so willing to dismiss out of hand
A-as the personal views of Watson wrongly given and wrongly attributed by him to the Facebook and the Brethren even though Watson was the FP's official Secretary at the time, and
B-the Church's extant scripture study guide.

I thought it was funny that someone there suggested we need to wait and see what the next updated scripture study guide says--because this one does not agree with the FARMS needed position. But when the new one comes out, won't we just have to wait for the one after that (and then after that, and so forth and so on)?

You have given explanations that even a moron could understand. The fact that they claim they do not--whether genuine or not--shows just how maddening it is to use logic on the MA&DB.

[_beastie]

You've given a good summary of the situation. I keep reminding them that the church has had since 1981 to update the scripture guide, and yet they have not done so, but that doesn't seem to get through. I will say that participating on this thread has forced me to revise my previous speculation somewhat. I formerly thought that the apologists were growing in influence and beginning to "inform" the brethren on what LDS should believe. But now I'm suspecting that the brethren are well aware of the dichotomy within the church, and are happy to throw bones to each side in the hopes that they don't notice they are playing both sides at the same time. (yes,that was a hopelessly mixed metaphor but it's past my bedtime)

[_Nimrod]

I agree that the 2nd Watson Letter saga this month on the two boards does lend more evidence to Shades' dichotomy and the Church's different treatment of the two groups.

One reason that I have for thinking more than faulty memory is at play here is the intense motive that FARMS has for a retraction letter (4/23/1993 or of whatever date after 10/16/1990) to be of equal or greater authority and validity than the 10/16/1990 Watson letter. Just as the director of finance cannot authoritatively or effectively retract the statements of a corporate vice president, neither can a sr. executive secretary (Carla Ogden) retract a statement by the FP's Secretary (F. Michael Watson). A fax has been considered less important that an actual letter, and an unsigned writing also pales in the face of a signed one. Hamblin/FARMS needed to inflate the 4/23/1993 Ogden Fax to be on a 'dignities' par with the 10/16/1990 Watson Letter if readers and critics would regard the 10/16/1990 Watson Letter (and the One Cumorah stance) withdrawn or retracted by the FP.

Then when Professor Dan goes from insisting that the verbiage quoted by Hamlin in 1993 and attributed to correspondence from Watson dated 4/23/1993 and was stated by Hamblin to be recent, was from a letter from F. Michael Watson that Professor Dan held with his hands, saw with his eyes--and by the eyes of at least 5 others, that Hamblin wasn't following these threads, but then suddenly was, that Professor Dan just happened the day after Brent Metcalfe noted the identical phrases being in the EoM to talk to a colleague who remembered it and an earlier uber document that has never been cited, to then Hamblin remembering it to be a pre-1985 letter after Professor Dan called the Office of the FP and found they did not have a copy of a letter from Watson to Hamblin even though its computerized records go back to 1987, this begins to look like a Nixonian cover-up, with as much integrity involved.

[_beastie]

One reason that I have for thinking more than faulty memory is at play here is the intense motive that FARMS has for a retraction letter (4/23/1993 or of whatever date after 10/16/1990) to be of equal or greater authority and validity than the 10/16/1990 Watson letter. Just as the director of finance cannot authoritatively or effectively retract the statements of a corporate vice president, neither can a sr. executive secretary (Carla Ogden) retract a statement by the FP's Secretary (F. Michael Watson). A fax has been considered less important that an actual letter, and an unsigned writing also pales in the face of a signed one. Hamblin/FARMS needed to inflate the 4/23/1993 Ogden Fax to be on a 'dignities' par with the 10/16/1990 Watson Letter if readers and critics would regard the 10/16/1990 Watson Letter (and the One Cumorah stance) withdrawn or retracted by the FP.

Then when Professor Dan goes from insisting that the verbiage quoted by Hamlin in 1993 and attributed to correspondence from Watson dated 4/23/1993 and was stated by Hamblin to be recent, was from a letter from F. Michael Watson that Professor Dan held with his hands, saw with his eyes--and by the eyes of at least 5 others, that Hamblin wasn't following these threads, but then suddenly was, that Professor Dan just happened the day after Brent Metcalfe noted the identical phrases being in the EoM to talk to a colleague who remembered it and an earlier uber document that has never been cited, to then Hamblin remembering it to be a pre-1985 letter after Professor Dan called the Office of the FP and found they did not have a copy of a letter from Watson to Hamblin even though its computerized records go back to 1987, this begins to look like a Nixonian cover-up, with as much integrity involved.

Yes, I completely understand and appreciate your point. It’s funny, when recounting this latest event to my boyfriend, I used a similar analogy. In politics, it’s usual the cover-up that kills you. I agree that there’s been spinning and covering up. But I still disagree on whether or not this necessarily entails overt dishonesty the way the Nixon cover-up did. All the elements you mention result in increased need for some additional explanation, but that increased need can as readily result in the brain playing tricks as it can result in overt dishonesty. If, at some point, we see that some document was actually falsified, then that obviously goes into overt dishonesty. I do not believe that case has been made. Instead, it all boils down to who remembers what, and that is when the brain does its best at playing tricks on us. Our brains deceive us first, and then deceive others. The person who is best able to deceive others has first been deceived by his/her own brain, and hence, truly believes in the deception. When a human being truly believes in the trickery his/her brain has provided, that person can relay the information in a way that induces belief in others. In other words, the nonverbal clues that human beings often give when they lie aren’t an issue, because the person genuinely believes what he/she is saying.

Aside from that, I agree that DCP has been his normal coy and disingenuous self in this event. He proclaims that he has little to no interest in the topic while it’s obvious that he has an intense interest in the topic and a strong need to resolve it in his favor. Hence, his communications to the FP office and Hamblin while denying that he cared about the issue at all. But as the words are falling out of his mouth, I think he probably believes them. Human beings are crazy, flat-out. We tend to believe we’re always right, no matter what, and we tend to believe what crazy BS falls out of our mouth at any given moment, no matter how silly. Knowing that is our tendency, I still see no reason to presume overt dishonesty, until the point where it can be shown that documents were actually falsified. Of course, I could be wrong, and maybe there is overt dishonesty involved, but I don’t feel like I pay any undue cost by giving the benefit of the doubt.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

... I still see no reason to presume overt dishonesty, until the point where it can be shown that documents were actually falsified...

Hello Madame,

Oh my. You honestly do not believe this man is being dishonest? Oh my.

Well. I suppose if he is kind enough to produce all the discussed documents then we can put these matters to rest, no?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_beastie]

Perhaps my reluctance to assume overt dishonesty is involved when fallible memory seems an adequate explanation is due to the fact that MADdites have, in the past, repeatedly accused me of various things, but especially of lying, being a liar, knowing what I'm saying is not true, etc. These accusations were always confusing, because I genuinely believed what I was saying, and I could not fathom why they thought I was lying. So clearly human beings are prone to suspect someone in the "other" tribe is lying or being malicious in some way when the person so accused may not have had the slightest intention of being malicious or of lying. So why take the extra step of accusations of dishonest at all? The human memory is horribly fallible and extremely prone to later redaction.

[_Dr. Shades]

mfb's faith is that he will not be led astray--by FARMS. His faith is in FARMS, even in the face of contradicting statements from FP.

I've been saying it for years: "When the apologists contradict the prophets, Chapel Mormons almost always go with the prophets, while Internet Mormons almost always go with the apologists."

[_beastie]

Shades,

You may be interested to know that the thread on MAD is now veering towards the dichotomies within the church. It's probably my fault because I referred to Scott's "folk Mormons" idea.

[_Dr. Shades]

Shades,

You may be interested to know that the thread on MAD is now veering towards the dichotomies within the church.

Thanks for the heads-up.

It's probably my fault because I referred to Scott's "folk Mormons" idea.

Actually, it was my idea, he just repackaged it under a different name.

[_beastie]

Actually, it was my idea, he just used a different name.

LOL. Well, he went beyond your idea when he attributed all sorts of pejorative characteristics to "folk Mormons". I don't recall you saying that chapel Mormons are lazy, ignorant, etc.

And, by the way, I deliberately used Scott's labels instead of yours, in the hopes of avoiding the predictable "Shades is full of it" dialogue. Apparently, it didn't work.