2nd Watson Letter just found!'

[_Doctor Scratch]

DCP added on further commentary:

Addendum:

ROTFL!

Over on his message board, my Malevolent Stalker is now suggesting that Greg Smith and/or Matt Roper and/or Brent Hall may have forged this document or some document or done something horrible or (good grief, I couldn't bear to do more than skim the idiocy) and speculating that one or more of them may be in imminent danger of excommunication. I'd say that you can't make this stuff up. But, clearly, he can.

Dan, let's get something straight here. It was you who had insisted, all along, that all of us evil critics should contact the FP about the letter since it would cause you and the other FARMS people involved to be fired from BYU, get excommunicated, etc. You said this again and again and again. Do I really need to pull up the quotes? The odd thing here is that it was one of your own who finally posted the supposed "Letter," and it turns out to be *nothing* like what you'd said. Who is lying in all of this, Dr. Peterson? Did you say all that stuff about getting fired and excommunication in the hopes that the letter *wouldn't* come to light?

Really, your act is astonishing. CKSalmon has presented iron clad evidence against your earlier "testimony." Who is lying in this mess? I notice, too, that your antics have attracted the attention of Brent Metcalfe. I think it's safe to say that you had better figure out a good explanation for this in a hurry.

(Honestly, after all your denials, I had begun to believe you about the 2nd Watson "Letter.")

[_Doctor Scratch]

DCP has just thrown Greg Smith & et al. under the bus:

So, the Carla Ogden fax that Greg posted isn't the document; rather, it's "another apparently official document" that fortuitously replicates the original "Watson letter" sent to Bill and which is now lost!?

Evidently.

It's certainly not the document that I saw.

It wouldn't surprise me, though, if there were some fairly standard boiler-plate language that went out on this subject for a time.

*good grief!*

This is what we've been waiting for?

I haven't been waiting for it. I haven't lost a moment of sleep over this Titanic Issue in years.

After all the years of convoluted claims about this, um, "letter"

There've been no "convoluted claims" from me.

Bill Hamblin received a letter, I supposed (and still suppose) in response to something from him. It came from Michael Watson, in the office of the First Presidency. We cited the text in toto in the FARMS Review. Bill subsequently lost his copy of the letter. That's it. An epic saga that fairly sears the screen! Intrigue! Drama! Suspense! Romance!


© 2009 Daniel C. Peterson. All rights reserved.

There you go, Prof. P: stick to your story!. Probably, the Hall inquiry is totally distinct and separate from the Hamblin inquiry! Gee, maybe FARMS and FAIR ought to do a better job of communicating with one another. This is going to necessitate a change to the FAIR Wiki entry. Maybe you guys should form an "official" affiliation after all?

[_Gadianton]

the alternative is even worse: i.e., that there was a widespread conspiracy within FARMS to use this fax as a shaky means of making claims about the First Presidency's beliefs.

Yes, so here's how FARMS puts it: A TBM sends in a question, Watson answers with his opinion. Hamblin writes a detailed and thought-provoking response. Watson is stunned, he goes to the FP and they clarify that he was originally mistaken, he publishes the *correction*.

Here's a more likely reality: A TBM sends in a question, Watson answers. Some other crap elsewhere happens in another time and context in Texas and this Hall guy gets a fax from not Watson, but Carla in barely readable english saying that the FP has no opinion. The letter is circulated around FARMS, and somehow, whether through intentional deceit or carelessness, the FARMS crowd comes to believe that the letter was a response to Bill Hamblin as a specific clarification from watson(?).

http://www.fairblog.org/2008/09/09/book ... geography/

"Ed Goble", a guy who spanked Poulsen and others on the FAIR blog recently on this issue. Prior to this new evidence, he had already figured out that the first and second watson letter had nothing to do with each other. That the first letter was one event in one context, that the second letter was another unrelated event in another context. He points out that the two contradict each other - THAT THE SECOND LETTER DOES NOT *CLARIFY* THE FIRST.

Ed's insights are really brilliant considering 1) at this point he is under the impression that the 2nd letter was sent from watson, which we now know is false/lie. 2) that the letter was sent to Hamblin in response to a solicitation, which is false/lie.

Given the new information, Goble's theory rises to the next level. two somewhat contradictory letters in two contexts from two different people exist. One of these letters is aped into a *clarification* of the first, a single authorship is claimed, and a false backstory of a question/response format is provided to make it look like the first is obviously opinion and the second is obviously fact after careful consulting of the brethren by the perpetrator of the error, thus establishing a false continuity that never existed between the two statements.

[_Dr. Shades]

Once again, did Greg Smith claim that this "2nd Watson Letter" (ahem) was found in John Sorenson's files?

If so, then I wonder where John Sorenson fits in in the "chain of custody" of that letter.

[_Gadianton]

Dr. Shades, my guess is that Hall received the "letter", made copies, and distributed. Sorenson had but one of many copies. This implies most of the faculty was aware of the real origin of the letter but let the Hamblin claim ride. Possibly in an effort to bolster a better story, perhaps in confusion. Note that had there been a peer review system, then Hamblin's claim in his article would have been questioned, the story would have been straightened out years ago, and the present fiasco would have been avoided.

Also note the parallel's between DCP's supposed more primary document with brilliant FP letterhead, signatures, and overall the hallmarks of an authoritative work with...

- The Murphy Transcript which was an official "court recording" that all apologists demanded the world to believe in on Juliann's insistence.
- The missing papyri with brilliant red ink and careful preservation that all apologists demanded the world to believe in on Nibley's insistence.

[_harmony]

Poor Greg Smith. His days as a friend to LDS apologetics have just come to a close.

How embarrassing.

[_Nimrod]

Note that had there been a peer review system, then Hamblin's claim in his article would have been questioned, the story would have been straightened out years ago, and the present fiasco would have been avoided.

Maybe the 'scholars' at FARMS have a 'faith review' system, rather than a peer review system. That seems to be a better fit for FARMS and an explanation of the new Mormon Scholars Testify website.

[_TAK]

Should FARMS consider a new name ..
I have a suggestion:

[_Eric]

Oh my... How sad. I don't think there is any reason to doubt - especially now - the pervasive lack of integrity coming from the Mormon apologists.

How embarrasing for all involved. It's times like these that make me thankful (for his sake) that my step-dad limits his apologetics to emails and print. For all his flaws, at least he isn't a lying forger.

[_Nimrod]

There is something else that's worth bringing up, which is the cover letter for the fax:

I thought you would be interested in this FAX from Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency. We have been receiving a number of questions from the Oklahoma, Texas area where anti-Mormons are using a letter from Brother Watson to a Bishop where Brother Watson said that the Church supports only one location for Cumoarh, and that is the New York location. I talked with him on the phone the other day and told him of the questions that were coming to us. He responded that the First Presidency would like to clear up that Issue and he would FAX me with that clarification.
<br. Thanks

[signed] Brent [Hall]

This is confusing, too. To whom was this sent? To Matt Roper? The fax itself was (apparently) sent to Brent Hall.... Was the cover letter (and accompanying copy of the fax) sent to Greg Smith? The text of the cover sheet itself is also odd. Is Brent Hall saying that "anti-Mormons" from the "Oklahoma, Texas" area finally prompted them to ask Michael Watson for a copy of the fax? Or, is this letter from circa 1993? And if not, why would Michael Watson be claiming now, in 2009, that the First Presidency would want to clear up that "Issue" which had supposedly been clearly up by the *original* fax/letter back in 1993?

Things just aren't adding up here.

I think the Brent Hall cover letter from which you (Dr. Scratch) quote is from April 1993. Hall claims to have talked with Brother Watson 'the other day' in relation to the date of the writing of that cover letter, and that in that 'other day' telephone conversation, Watson promised to send the clarifying fax. At the time of writing it, Brent Hall describes the Carla Ogden Fax as coming from Watson (unless as DCP's late night dancing on MAD yesterday suggests that the FP issued two letters to FARMS on exactly the same day--April 23, 1993--about the same subject and with the same 'boilerplate' verbiage--except the "that has been suggested" phrase at the end of the Carla Ogden Fax but according to Hamblin's quote was not part of the 2nd Watson Letter, and Hall's cover is explaining the different, 2nd Watson Letter rather than the Carla Ogden Fax that was addressed to Hall himself).

If the Hall cover letter is from April 1993, to whom was Hall forwarding a copy of the Carla Ogden Fax (much more likely than it was of a separate letter from Watson to Hamblin of the same date)? To whomever it was being forwarded by Hall, why would that recipient have had an interest in April 1993 but then not volunteered it in the 16 years since?

Clearly, either at FARMS, the Carla Ogden Fax is considered the "2nd Watson letter" that Hamblin claimed it to be back in 1993 or Matt Roper was setting Greg Smith up (promising the 2nd Watson letter and then only supplying the Carla Ogden Fax). From the time Greg Smith first posted about the 2nd Watson letter on December 2 on MAD, it was described as the 2nd Watson letter, not as a fax from Carla Ogden to Brent Hall.

Either something nefarious has been going on, or any claim to 'peer review' at FARMS is an utter joke.