Welcome question for Mr. Peterson: Where is the stone box?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Not tracking it down really works out more in the favor of critics.

Meaning you and you/"Ref". Both of you, at most.

And it's not as if either you or you/"Ref" will ever cease being my implacable critic(s).

[_Daniel Peterson]

I say, go with the first Watson letter until you see the second. For those who have seen the second, go with that.

Since I have only seen the first, I subscribe to the view that: "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."

Ah, but have you ever actually seen that first letter with your own eyes? And, even if so, how do you know that what you saw wasn't a forgery? Shouldn't it have been subjected to the same tests that the Hofmann forgeries were subjected to? If not, isn't there something being hidden? And why?

It's all a vast conspiracy.

[_asbestosman]

Ah, but have you ever actually seen that first letter with your own eyes? And, even if so, how do you know that what you saw wasn't a forgery? Shouldn't it have been subjected to the same tests that the Hofmann forgeries were subjected to? If not, isn't there something being hidden? And why?

It's all a vast conspiracy.

I heard that the originals have a watermark with directions to your secret reptilian lair. No wonder your friend Dr. Hamblin had to destroy his copy. In fact I think it self-destructed a few moments after you all read it.

[_cksalmon]

Okay, look. I just phoned the Church, asking to H He can write to Michael Watson. (I wouldn't have called.) He should, ideally, provide Michael Watson with a copy of the text of the letter, and ask him whether he denies having written the letter.

If Michael Watson denies having written the letter, we'll go from there. If he can't recall, one way or the other, that will be fine with me. If he confirms it, the game will be over, and Scratch will have to move on to a new avenue of attack. It won't take him more than a few seconds.

Hi Dan--

I remember, once upon a time, that I posted the 1st Watson letter online at FAIRboards.org in the service of some controversy or another and you referred to the second letter. No text was proffered at that time. Of course, I took (and take) you at your word, as I would expect reasonable folks to do with one another.

I agree that this matter can die a quick death, one way or the other.

Perhaps you could post the text of the letter (since it has been published)?

Or, alternatively, how would one contact F. Michael Watson? I haven't been able to find a mailing address (or email address)?

Best to you.

CKS

[_Bond...James Bond]

I heard that the originals have a watermark with directions to your secret reptilian lair. No wonder your friend Dr. Hamblin had to destroy his copy. In fact I think it self-destructed a few moments after you all read it.

*Silently giggles while imaging Doc Peterson getting a secret message ala Ethan Hunt in Mission Impossible*

[_Daniel Peterson]

I remember, once upon a time, that I posted the 1st Watson letter online at FAIRboards.org in the service of some controversy or another and you referred to the second letter. No text was proffered at that time. Of course, I took (and take) you at your word, as I would expect reasonable folks to do with one another.

Reasonable folks -- I think you're one of them -- don't presume that their discussion partners are liars unless they have very strong reason for doing so.

I don't consider Scratch a reasonable person. Still, he thinks, or claims to think, that he has strong reason to consider me "a mean-spirited liar." But the evidence convincing him of that is wholly of his invention. (I'm not sure whether he realizes that fact, or not.)

I agree that this matter can die a quick death, one way or the other.

Perhaps you could post the text of the letter (since it has been published)?

It's available on line, in an article published by Bill Hamblin in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. Roughly Vol. 2, Number 1, or thereabouts. It's on the FARMS or Maxwell Institute website.

I have to run right now to record a lecture for later distribution.

Or, alternatively, how would one contact F. Michael Watson? I haven't been able to find a mailing address (or email address)?

I have no privileged access to him. Anybody is as liable to find his contact information as I would be.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Well well well, I thought you bid us all farewell yesterday?

If it itches, SCRATCH IT!

[_cksalmon]

Just so we know what we're talking about, here's the text, presumably from the second Watson letter, that appeared in Bill Hamblin's article "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon." [Extraneous footnote references removed.--CKS]

Finally, Wilson does not mention the fact that the Latterday Saint Church has no official position on Book of Mormon
geography,or that other Latter-day Saint General Authorities have advised caution in theorizing about Book of Mormon geography. Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency of the Church, has recently clarified the Church’s position on Book of Mormon geography.

The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography.
While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon
geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of
Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.70

70. Correspondence from Michael Watson, Office of the First Presidency, 23 April 1993.

Best.

CKS

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well well well, I thought you bid us all farewell yesterday?

I did.

And the significance of that, in your mind, is . . . what, exactly?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Just so we know what we're talking about, here's the text, presumably from the second Watson letter, that appeared in Bill Hamblin's article "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon." [Extraneous footnote references removed.--CKS]

Finally, Wilson does not mention the fact that the Latterday Saint Church has no official position on Book of Mormon
geography,or that other Latter-day Saint General Authorities have advised caution in theorizing about Book of Mormon geography. Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency of the Church, has recently clarified the Church’s position on Book of Mormon geography.

The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography.
While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon
geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of
Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.70

70. Correspondence from Michael Watson, Office of the First Presidency, 23 April 1993.

Best.

CKS

That's the one.