DiscussMormonism.com

A stunning admission has issued forth from the mouth of Professor Peterson. (This issue was raised in a separate thread by Smart B.) Critics have long wondered what became of the so-called "second letter" written by Church secretary Michael Watson. I.e., why can't we read the full text of this letter? After all, it effectively "undid" the Hill Cumorah clarification of the first letter. At last, Professor Peterson provides an answer:

Daniel Peterson wrote:As I have also said before, Professor Hamblin quoted every single word of the letter in his article, apart from its greeting, its date, and its signature. Every single one. So there can be no question of our having taken anything out of context or having omitted something that would fundamentally change its meaning.

Unfortunately, Professor Hamblin mislaid the original of the letter some years ago, and there's nothing I can do about that. But I saw it, and he saw it, and at least three other editors saw it. Our source checkers saw it, too.

(emphasis added)

It is entirely possible that I may have missed some earlier admission by DCP or Prof. Hamblin that this is what happened to the letter, but this seems huge. (My take is that they managed to avoid bringing up the fact that Hamblin had totally bungled his handling of the letter.) How horrible to lose such a critical piece of evidence! I don't know about others, but in my opinion, they ought to retract their claim, seeing as how their key piece of evidence no longer exists.

Edited to add: It is striking to me that DCP would be so defensive regarding this letter. When pressed on it, and when asked to produce it, he immediately responded with retorts along the lines of, "What? Are you accusing us of lying? How DARE YOU!" This seems an overreaction, in my opinion. All people are asking for is validation of the evidence. Why he feels the need to respond in this manner is anybody's guess. After all, Prof. Hamblin hasn't exactly been a model of professionalism and scholarship, as the "Metcalfe is Butthead" affair pretty clearly demonstrates.

I will say it again: until they can come up with the letter, I think they should withdraw their argument---at least on a temporary basis. It seems the only right and ethical thing to do.

Just imagine if some 'anti' had some key piece of evidence but had lost it. How willing to accept the evidence would the TBMers be?

I can hear it now: "Anti-mormon liars!"

Clearly this is just a "tempest in a teapot", and critics are silly to make so much of it.

(paraphrasing John Sorenson when I provided the evidence that he had completely mis-attributed a citation, and could no longer remember exactly where the claim originated, but it was probably in a phone call from someone who is now dead)

I'm sure they're right next to the GP, U&T, SoL, Liahona, Hebrew inscriptions, rusting swords, ...

Hey it's only a letter.

It isn't like they lost 116 pages of something that was supposted to be important.


smilie....smilie...and...smiley

History does repeat itself.

Pokatator wrote:Hey it's only a letter.

It isn't like they lost 116 pages of something that was supposted to be important.


smilie....smilie...and...smiley

History does repeat itself.

I misplaced my car...you think it was stolen...or maybe it was not where I thought it was in the first place...oh yeah there it is right where I left...i suddenly found it

Perhaps it was "lost" in preparation for the forthcoming Joseph Smith Papers book which deep sixes the LGT?

Smith and members: One Cumorah

Farms: Two Cumorahs, subsequent creation of LGT

Watson 1990 letter: One Cumorah

Farms: Maintains that there is two Cumorahs, one in NY, the other unknown

Watson supposedly issues new letter: Two Cumorahs, just like the Farm boys said..

Forth coming book on Joseph Smith Papers: One Cumorah

Farms: uh oh.... Quick! Lose the second letter from Watson!



Here is the first Watson letter:

Polygamy Porter wrote:Perhaps it was "lost" in preparation for the forthcoming Joseph Smith Papers book which deep sixes the LGT?

Smith and members: One Cumorah

Farms: Two Cumorahs, subsequent creation of LGT

Watson 1990 letter: One Cumorah

Farms: Maintains that there is two Cumorahs, one in NY, the other unknown

Watson supposedly issues new letter: Two Cumorahs, just like the Farm boys said..

Forth coming book on Joseph Smith Papers: One Cumorah

Farms: uh oh.... Quick! Lose the second letter from Watson!



Here is the first Watson letter:

You know, it occurs to me that this is more evidence for the "back-and-forth" relationship that FARMS maintains with the Church hierarchy. Professor Peterson has gone to great pains in order to try and downplay this relationship, claiming that he doesn't ever interact with the Brethren regarding apologetics, but the very fact that Watson issued the second letter would seem to contradict this. I.e., what prompted Watson to issue the second letter at all? Letter Number 2 supposedly wound up in the hands of Prof. Hamblin, but how did he get a hold of it in the first place? The bottom line appears to be that FARMS and the Church hierarchy in all likelihood maintain some kind of shadowy, "non-official" relationship. DCP has also admitted to discussing critics of the Church with one of the Twelve, but he claims that the interaction was "minimal." I wonder how truthful he has been about this. Certainly Steve Benson's account of his meeting with Elders Maxwell and Oaks would seem to dispel the Good Professor's claims, but for me the jury is still out.

It was a poster "Joey" who first raised the issue on a general thread. Book of Mormon Archeology? The missing letter was later specifically discussed. The missing letter

If I remember correctly Hamblin initially refused to participate but later said that is wasn't a letter but rather correspondence(maybe a email). Either way If I recall correctly the rebuttal is still missing.


Phaedrus

Mister Scratch wrote:It is entirely possible that I may have missed some earlier admission by DCP or Prof. Hamblin that this is what happened to the letter, but this seems huge.

I recall DCP admitting this some time ago either on FAIR or ZLMB (on a thread about the location of the Book of Mormon Cumorah), when he responded with Hamlin's letter to the first Watson letter. He pooh-poohed away the importance of Hamblin's lost letter even back then. But it did seem odd that Hamblin would rely so heavily on this letter, only to admit he lost it and is recalling it from memory. My feeling is, if folks can pray to find their car keys, why can't Hamblin and DCP pray to find the lost letter? ;)

How horrible to lose such a critical piece of evidence! I don't know about others, but in my opinion, they ought to retract their claim, seeing as how their key piece of evidence no longer exists.

I bet Hamblin could get a copy if he really wanted to -- I'm quite certain that Watson makes copies of all his correspondence, particularly ones that answer questions such as this.

Edited to add: It is striking to me that DCP would be so defensive regarding this letter. When pressed on it, and when asked to produce it, he immediately responded with retorts along the lines of, "What? Are you accusing us of lying? How DARE YOU!" This seems an overreaction, in my opinion.

It was an overreaction, I think, because DCP is very embarrassed the letter has been lost, which will always weaken his counter-argument (and Hamblin's article).