DiscussMormonism.com

As I have stated before...

A thirty second prayer from TSM and this whole matter could be put to rest.

If the Brethren are not willing to pray, how about the apologists?

I hear Meldrum & Co., right along with earlier LDS leaders testify of the truthfulness of the HGT but apologists only state their opinions and claim that earlier leaders were just stating theirs.

I find it odd.

~td~

You would be better off saying a prayer to the FSM. May you be touched by his noodely appendage.

Sono_hito wrote:You would be better off saying a prayer to the FSM. May you be touched by his noodely appendage.

Ramen, me matey!

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.

Whoah, wait a second here professor Scratch. This is something I hadn't considered. Are you saying the timing of this finding is suspicious?

It is interesting that for years, as you point out, it has been a matter of doctrine that only one letter ever existed and now lost forever. And now, all of a sudden, right as Packer sets the Oaks faction in its place and makes the call to allow Meldrum's book to go back on the shelf, and knowing that *the* primary point of contention was about scholars rejecting the teachings of Joseph Smith, now it seems like hey -- who doesn't have a copy of the lost letter?

What could this imply?

One scenario:

During the dispute, the apologists called foul on Meldrum for implying his theory was the brethren-friendly theory. Packer's faction asked for evidence. The 2nd Watson letter was brought up. Packer demanded to see the letter. Phones lit up like Las Vegas at night across the face of Mopolia, "we're f'd if we don't find this letter!" But too late, a copy couldn't be "produced" in time, and the objection naturally withdrawn.

Gadianton wrote:

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.

Whoah, wait a second here professor Scratch. This is something I hadn't considered. Are you saying the timing of this finding is suspicious?

It is interesting that for years, as you point out, it has been a matter of doctrine that only one letter ever existed and now lost forever. And now, all of a sudden, right as Packer sets the Oaks faction in its place and makes the call to allow Meldrum's book to go back on the shelf, and knowing that *the* primary point of contention was about scholars rejecting the teachings of Joseph Smith, now it seems like hey -- who doesn't have a copy of the lost letter?

What could this imply?

One scenario:

During the dispute, the apologists called foul on Meldrum for implying his theory was the brethren-friendly theory. Packer's faction asked for evidence. The 2nd Watson letter was brought up. Packer demanded to see the letter. Phones lit up like Las Vegas at night across the face of Mopolia, "we're f'd if we don't find this letter!" But too late, a copy couldn't be "produced" in time, and the objection naturally withdrawn.

Gadianton and Dr Scratch,

If I am following--and I am new to this topic--Rodney Meldrum and Packer's faction are remaining true to Joseph Smith on the location of the Hill Cumorah (New York state) and the Mopologists and Oaks' faction place the location in MesoAmerica. The 1st Watson letter indicated the the First Presidency's position in the early 90s to be that the Hill Cumorah is located in New York state. A blow to the Mopologists and Oaks' faction.

The 2nd Watson letter, particularly with explanatory notations in ink, is to the effect that Watson misspoke when saying it was the First Presidency's position that the Hill Cumorah is in New York state. (I'm not sure if the 2nd letter just demurred on the geography, or affirmatively states that the First Presidency believes the Hill Cumorah to be in MesoAmerica.) This 2nd Watson letter reopened the question, giving the the Mopologists and Oaks' faction a sigh of relief.

The Mopologists, apparently Sorenson to be specific, has had the 2nd Watson letter. It was discovered among Sorenson's filings when the Maxwell Institute was moved to a new location. However, prior to that and despite the 2nd Watson, the Mopologists would not produce a copy for inspection, claimed there was only one copy, claimed to not know its whereabouts, etc.

If the 2nd Watson letter says what it is reported by them to be saying (and therein that 'if' might lie the answer to my question), why would the Mopologists not be waving the copy of the letter around like a banner of validation? Why the serpentine comments about it?

Nimrod,

They have been waving it around, or rather, the supposed transcribed text. This has been pretty much the only scrap of evidence the apologists have to justify their otherwise apostate intellectualism. I mean, with how utterly important this letter is to their cause, one wonders how it got lost in the first place. Some believe the letter never existed. Not to say the apologists outright lied, but, perhaps the "letter" was something like a social construct? I admit this is a little ambitious, but, consider that if the location of Cumorah isn't doctrine, is of no relevance to doctrine, and given the pressure of critics contrary to this point, at any time one would imagine a senior apologist could get a quick clarification of doctrine on the matter and would do so-- if they could. At one time, when the Watson letter seemed to seal the case against the apologists the contents of the "2nd Watson letter" appeared before the apologists much like the Book of Moses before Joseph Smith. Now, when push really comes to shove and such a letter could help the apologists prove a point that could have halted the printing of a rival theory, the "2nd Watson letter" physically manifests itself for the first time ever. It could seem that the gradual instantiation into reality of the "2nd Watson letter" covaries significantly with apologetic desperation.

Now, we can drain our analysis of any assigning of motives or speculation and just note the fortuitous timing. I think we are all intrigued by how these events will unfold.

Hello Everyone,

Well, we are now entering a second week before the poster on the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion board receives the much anticipated copy of a copy of the 2nd Watson Letter (with annotations even!). I do believe the US and Canadian postal systems have some upgrading to do! Oh my, I really should not post after having sipped on my morning postum. I do apologize, dear friends.

That being said, our dear Dean Robbers brought to light an interesting notion I had not considered: The Timing. As usual his flair for nuance is unmatched in Mormon academia. I would suggest that it would be unsurprising if it were found out that a certain famous Mormon apologist were behind this new effort to counter the Meldrum Theory via the unearthing, as it were, of this clarification-revelation.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:That being said, our dear Dean Robbers brought to light an interesting notion I had not considered: The Timing.

The timing is nothing less than incredible. One might say it was extremely fortunate. Amazing. Kinda like the restoration of the higher priesthood after the church was formed. Horse, barn door, etc.

As usual his flair for nuance is unmatched in Mormon academia. I would suggest that it would be unsurprising if it were found out that a certain famous Mormon apologist were behind this new effort to counter the Meldrum Theory via the unearthing, as it were, of this clarification-revelation.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Nibley's been resurrected? How's he taking his daughter's accusation?

Nimrod wrote:
The 2nd Watson letter, particularly with explanatory notations in ink, is to the effect that Watson misspoke when saying it was the First Presidency's position that the Hill Cumorah is in New York state.

Nimrod---

No one seems to know what the "explanatory notations" say. Greg Smith's posts were the first I had ever heard of any "annotations"---certainly Prof. Peterson never mentioned anything about any "annotations" over the course of the many years he's been using the 2nd Watson Letter as pro-Mopologetic evidence.

According to G. Smith (who, it should be remembered, promised to post the letter to FAIR wiki "early" this week), the "annotation" has to do with the letter's provenance. And this is kind of weird. Why would Sorenson add a note to the letter in order to establish provenance? (This may be why CKSalmon was inquiring into the matter, and further, why DCP was so cagey. DCP's fittingly Orwellian attitude seems to be, "All utterances from the Brethren are trustworthy, but some utterances are more trustworthy than others.")

I think that this "annotation"---provided that Smith ever actually posts the letter; if he doesn't, it will just supply further evidence that he is a dishonest individual---is important because it provides further evidence for the apparent "fissure" within the ranks of the Brethren. If the apologists have a Watson Letter with annotation suggesting special provenance, it gives them a (quite lame) leg up on the 1st Watson Letter. After all, the 1st Letter didn't have no "annotation"! They really are quite desperate, it would seem.

The Mopologists, apparently Sorenson to be specific, has had the 2nd Watson letter. It was discovered among Sorenson's filings when the Maxwell Institute was moved to a new location. However, prior to that and despite the 2nd Watson, the Mopologists would not produce a copy for inspection, claimed there was only one copy, claimed to not know its whereabouts, etc.

They---and by "they" we actually mean "Daniel C. Peterson"---were clearly lying about the fact that there were multiple copies of the 2nd Watson Letter. I believe that "they" (i.e., "he") lied in order to maintain a tactical and rhetorical advantage over critics and Chapel Mormons.

If the 2nd Watson letter says what it is reported by them to be saying (and therein that 'if' might lie the answer to my question), why would the Mopologists not be waving the copy of the letter around like a banner of validation? Why the serpentine comments about it?

For reasons of plausible deniability. As is becoming increasingly clear, some of the Brethren do not side with the FARMS people. They prefer traditional, orthodox, "Chapel Mormon" views---including the old-school theories about Cumorah. Now, if you are a Mopologist whose livelihood depends upon you not making any waves with the Brethren, what are you supposed to do? Your research and your deeply flawed sense of intellectual honesty tell you that Cumorah *must* be in Meso America, and yet, traditional Church doctrine (including the authoritative 1st Watson Letter) teaches that Cumorah is in NY. So, what do you do?

It seems to me that a perfect strategy would be to either acquire or contrive a "2nd Watson Letter," and to then have it "disappear"---which is precisely what the apologists did. Remember that a part of the whole problem here is that the Tanners got hold of a copy of the 1st Letter and they distributed copies of it. The nice thing about a "missing" 2nd Watson Letter is that it won't get circulated among critics, anti-Mormons, and Chapel Mormons. If a legit copy or scan of the 2nd Watson Letter were to appear online, say, then it would show that the apologists are essentially teaching false doctrine (at least in the eyes of some of the GAs). So, what the apologists did was really quite brilliant. They have what seems to be an authoritative reason for disputing the 1st Letter, but they don't have the kind of totemic proof for it which would land them in hot water. DCP and others would probably claim that the physical letter is unimportant, but this is a specious claim, especially in the context of Mormonism. I mean, can you imagine someone connected with the Church saying that the physical Book of Mormon is unimportant, and that it's sufficient simply that we know its basic contents?

In any event, I'm guessing that DCP was frantically PMing and emailing Sorenson, Greg Smith, and/or others in an effort to stop the letter from being posted. As of right now, I'm willing to wager that this "Sorenson Copy" never sees the light of day. Time will tell.

Doctor Scratch wrote:

Nimrod wrote:
The 2nd Watson letter, particularly with explanatory notations in ink, is to the effect that Watson misspoke when saying it was the First Presidency's position that the Hill Cumorah is in New York state.

Nimrod---

No one seems to know what the "explanatory notations" say. Greg Smith's posts were the first I had ever heard of any "annotations"---certainly Prof. Peterson never mentioned anything about any "annotations" over the course of the many years he's been using the 2nd Watson Letter as pro-Mopologetic evidence.

The question is: who wrote the annotations? (which is kinda like asking who wrote the Book of Mormon.)

According to G. Smith (who, it should be remembered, promised to post the letter to FAIR wiki "early" this week), the "annotation" has to do with the letter's provenance. And this is kind of weird. Why would Sorenson add a note to the letter in order to establish provenance? (This may be why CKSalmon was inquiring into the matter, and further, why DCP was so cagey. DCP's fittingly Orwellian attitude seems to be, "All utterances from the Brethren are trustworthy, but some utterances are more trustworthy than others.")

Who says it was Sorenson who made the annotation?

Dan is always Orwellian.

I think that this "annotation"---provided that Smith ever actually posts the letter; if he doesn't, it will just supply further evidence that he is a dishonest individual---is important because it provides further evidence for the apparent "fissure" within the ranks of the Brethren.

Anyone who thinks Packer and Oaks are going to agree when they don't have to agree hasn't followed them very much. The only thing they agree on is that it's okay (and expected even) to lie about a wide variety of things.

If the apologists have a Watson Letter with annotation suggesting special provenance, it gives them a (quite lame) leg up on the 1st Watson Letter. After all, the 1st Letter didn't have no "annotation"! They really are quite desperate, it would seem.

Lame leg. Nice visual, there. Why am I visualizing a leg of lamb?

They---and by "they" we actually mean "Daniel C. Peterson"---were clearly lying about the fact that there were multiple copies of the 2nd Watson Letter. I believe that "they" (i.e., "he") lied in order to maintain a tactical and rhetorical advantage over critics and Chapel Mormons.

It's quite easy to make copies nowadays. Almost everyone has access to Kinkos. Which tells me either they don't have it, or they don't want it out... which brings up the whole "trust me" thing again with Dan, and we know that's just not going to happen.

For reasons of plausible deniability. As is becoming increasingly clear, some of the Brethren do not side with the FARMS people.

Somebody really ought to let the FARMS people know how Packer feels about intellectuals.

They prefer traditional, orthodox, "Chapel Mormon" views---including the old-school theories about Cumorah. Now, if you are a Mopologist whose livelihood depends upon you not making any waves with the Brethren, what are you supposed to do? Your research and your deeply flawed sense of intellectual honesty tell you that Cumorah *must* be in Meso America, and yet, traditional Church doctrine (including the authoritative 1st Watson Letter) teaches that Cumorah is in NY. So, what do you do?

Why did you say "deeply flawed sense of intellectual honesty"?

It seems to me that a perfect strategy would be to either acquire or contrive a "2nd Watson Letter," and to then have it "disappear"---which is precisely what the apologists did.

Shades of the Golden Plates! And just about as believable.

Remember that a part of the whole problem here is that the Tanners got hold of a copy of the 1st Letter and they distributed copies of it. The nice thing about a "missing" 2nd Watson Letter is that it won't get circulated among critics, anti-Mormons, and Chapel Mormons.

And yet... "trust me"...? Oh so not trustworthy.

If a legit copy or scan of the 2nd Watson Letter were to appear online, say, then it would show that the apologists are essentially teaching false doctrine (at least in the eyes of some of the GAs).

Wave bye-bye to BYU employment.

So, what the apologists did was really quite brilliant. They have what seems to be an authoritative reason for disputing the 1st Letter, but they don't have the kind of totemic proof for it which would land them in hot water. DCP and others would probably claim that the physical letter is unimportant, but this is a specious claim, especially in the context of Mormonism. I mean, can you imagine someone connected with the Church saying that the physical Book of Mormon is unimportant, and that it's sufficient simply that we know its basic contents?

If it's not shown, it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, it's not pertinent. The world is no longer gullible enough to believe in gold plates that disappear.

In any event, I'm guessing that DCP was frantically PMing and emailing Sorenson, Greg Smith, and/or others in an effort to stop the letter from being posted. As of right now, I'm willing to wager that this "Sorenson Copy" never sees the light of day. Time will tell.

So you think Mr Smith won't be uploading his proof? Or will he cave to the pressure from MI?