DiscussMormonism.com

zzyzx wrote:"For those who, for whatever reason -- laziness, intellectual neglect, intransigence, invincible ignorance, whatever"

Are you sure you aren't an active Mormon? With a response like this I would expect you to be a Stake High Counselor in our Stake... or somewhere in Utah.

Some of us work. The controversies that you look at are not generally discussed or even known to many in the wards and stakes as they just... are... not... taught. FAIR and FARMS aren't mentioned at all in our ward classes and meetings. I asked ten members picked at random after a meeting last evening what FAIR and FARMS were. None had an answer that referred to Church stuff at all.

Many who don't visit pages such as this know little of controversy. They are as I and others have been for some time, wondering about things that don't add up but looking in 'official' church publications and histories to try and find answers. It is only lately that I found this and some other sites. Still can't tell real ones from parody without a lot of looking and asking. Living in a town where a visit to the Public Library and asking for or checking out certain LDS/Anti or pro books somehow gets noticed by Bishops and Stake officers makes for repression.

Spending much time with work pursuits takes the bulk of my time and being a clerk takes the bulk of Church time. Asking questions in meetings causes problems. This especially if they are actually questions instead of parroting the lesson and its pre-planned canned questions.

So, I do visit here since discovering it. Discussion of topics I have questions on is interesting. It has seemed to be better than Google searches with 1-4 million pages to visit for information. Maybe that is a mistake and asking and reading here a waste of time?

Scott Lloyd wrote:
On the other hand, we have Mormons who, for whatever reason -- laziness, intellectual neglect, intransigence, invincible ignorance, whatever -- cling to folk doctrine as though it were scripture. I shall call them folk Mormons.

Dr. Peterson's personal lack of knowledge regarding the authenticity of the first Watson letter (as he writes, "I assume it's real, but have no real evidence one way or the other") has piqued my curiosity about his current state of knowledge regarding the Second Watson letter. Does he also merely "assume" that the Second Watson Letter is authentic, while having "no real evidence one way or the other?" Or, is the Second Watson Letter to be regarded as authentic on more sure epistemic grounds? What are said grounds?

I'm not even sure how one might approach the verification of the proposition "The Second Watson Letter is authentic" while, per Dr. Peterson, the authenticity of the First Watson Letter has not yet even been confirmed--19 years on. Is the purported 1990 Watson letter authentic? There is, per Dr. Peterson, "no real evidence one way or the other."

Can anyone here solve this conundrum? Can anyone affiliated with this board find out if the First Watson Letter is authentic? Can anyone provide "real evidence" for Dr. Peterson one way or the other?

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I believe I saw a scanned copy of the 1st Watson Letter floating somewhere out there in the Ethernet, but I could not say from whence it appeared.

"The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon."

"Bro. Watson seems to have been speaking on his own understanding of the matter, and not as an official declaration of Church policy."

.... Mormons who, for whatever reason -- laziness, intellectual neglect, intransigence, invincible ignorance, whatever -- cling to folk doctrine as though it were scripture. I shall call them folk Mormons.

This is ridiculous, and I have more important things to do. Like just about anything.

Joey wrote:

This is ridiculous, and I have more important things to do. Like just about anything.

Peterson at 5:00 am on a Sunday morning posting on the MAD board!

Like just about anything!

Doctor Scratch wrote:The more I think about it, the more it occurs to me that Greg Smith's gambit here is a horrible, horrible blunder for the apologists---a clear sign of their desperation in light of increasing pressure and competition from Rodney Meldrum.

Greg's posting of the 2nd Watson Letter (if he does indeed do it; I wouldn't be surprised if it winds up getting "lost" in the mail) will mark a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics because it will represent a serious concession on the part of the apologists. I call this a "blunder" because I have a hard time seeing that this will benefit them in any significant way. If Smith posts the letter, it will prove that DCP was lying about it in order to prevent it from coming to light.

Further, the letter---and whatever handwritten text is on it, per Smith---will only show with more clarity just how powerful the apologists' influence is on the Brethren.

I have a feeling that Professor Peterson lied about the letter because he knew that he would have more power in the war with critics if the physical copy of the letter remained a mystery: if he was challenged, he could play the Victim Card, claiming that he was being accused of lying, forgery, etc., and basically shut down the discussion by way of his usual theatrics. If readers---either TBMs or critics---simply accepted his stories about the letter, then that was fine and dandy: that's what the apologists wanted. So, it was a win-win scenario for Dr. Peterson. Now, though, his house of cards is about to collapse, and thus it's no real surprise that he's frantically posting in response to CKSalmon's needling. DCP is probably in an emotional tailspin.