2nd Watson Letter just found!'

[_Nimrod]

Holy Crap. Brent Metcalfe just leveled the Mopologetic Kingdom. I will let others quote his discovery. For now, I will sit back and quietly contemplate the implications over a glass of Scotch.

Single malt, I hope.

Here's tapping the admiral myself.

[_Nimrod]

Brent Metcalfe has just introduced a game-changer on DCP. (I see Gadianton has beaten me to the punch!)

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208773800

The phraseology of the text quoted by Hamblin in his 1993 article as from the 2nd Watson Letter, and the identical text in the Ogden Fax, apparently originates from Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992), s.v. CUMORAH. Ludlow had mentioned Mesoamerica location for Cumorah as one of the 'other possible explanations or locations' for Cumorah that might be better fits than New York state, before explaining that in LDS doctrine "there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site that has been suggested".

So now the Ogden Fax's origin becomes more questionable. The Office of the First Presidency consults Ludlow to determine and quotes from Ludlow to explain official LDS doctrine? The Office of the First Presidency does this without referencing the source (read: plagiarizes)? And when requested by FARMS--espousers of the Mesoamerica geography--the Office of the First Presidency excludes from its Ludlow quotes mentiom of Mesoamerica?

Ludlow lists three sources in the Bibliography for the Cumorah entry--All three being FARMS published authors:

Clark, John. "A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies." Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1 (1989):20-70.

Palmer, David A. In Search of Cumorah: New Evidences for the Book of Mormon from Ancient Mexico. Bountiful, Utah, 1981.

Sorenson, John L. "Digging into the Book of Mormon: Part One." Ensign 14 (1984):26-37.

Thus, FARMerS [A] --> Encyclopedia of Mormonism [B] --> Carla Ogden Fax [C] --> Hill --> Hamblin --> FARMS Review [D]. Impressive that FARMS is the root source for its own cited resource. Or, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that FARMS is the font of LDS Doctrine. Sort of makes the First Presidency superfluous. Sort of gives new meaning to 'Mormon Scholars Testify'.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I had never, until yesterday, even thought of the possibility that Brent might be connected with my Malevolent Stalker, let alone seriously considered it. It hadn't occurred to me. I don't say that he is my Malevolent Stalker (though, of course, I can't rule that out), but they now seem to me linked in some interesting way that I hadn't recognized before. That seems pretty obvious, even beyond reasonable dispute, and I see no reason to withdraw the observation.

I find this fascinating, i hope DCP elaborates on this theory.

Hello Everyone,

Oh my. I think Dr. Peterson just experienced a certifiable meltdown.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_beastie]

Thus, FARMerS [A] --> Encyclopedia of Mormonism [B] --> Carla Ogden Fax [C] --> Hill --> Hamblin --> FARMS Review [D]. Impressive that FARMS is the root source for its own cited resource. Or, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that FARMS is the font of LDS Doctrine. Sort of makes the First Presidency superfluous. Sort of gives new meaning to 'Mormon Scholars Testify'.

Let’s savor this for a moment.

One of the primary, foundational ideas of Mormonism was that truth could reliably be obtained through revelation. Not only can people receive personal revelation to guide their lives, but God sanctions his approved representatives to receive revelation in behalf of the entire human species. This is the real way to discover truth in Mormonism, and even Mormon scholars verify this when they rely on their testimonies to affirm the truth of Mormonism. The truth of Mormonism cannot be ascertained through academic studies: it can only be ascertained through revelation.

Due to this fact, Mormonism has long had a tradition of turning up their noses at religious scholars. Packer made this extremely clear when he listed “so-called intellectuals, scholars” as one of the primary threats to the church.

The last is from a self-described intellectual:

"My concern is that the Brethren are contending with the church's own scholars. ... In the Catholic Church, the great scholars' efforts were used by the Church to refine and strengthen the doctrine (St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, for example). In our Church, the scholars are put down, even banished [and he names three of them, and they would be names all of whom you would know]. Once again I extend an offer to you to be a peacemaker between the Brethren and the scholars, if you wish me to attempt it, since I know so many in both groups. More than that, I understand the mind-sets of both groups."

Packer’s response:

The one who supposes that he "understands the mind-set of both groups" needs to understand that the doctrines of the gospel are revealed through the Spirit to prophets, not through the intellect to scholars.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/face.shtml

The fact that when confronted with information obtained from “so-called intellectuals and scholars” completely outside Mormonism, and not involved in anti-Mormonism – such as academic research into ancient history of the American continents – the prophets actually have to crib from the “so-called intellectuals and scholars” highlights that the primary problem facing the LDS church isn’t the Hill Cumorah, it isn’t the Book of Abraham, it isn’t the Book of Mormon: it is the fact that revelation doesn’t work. Whenever revelation touches upon subjects that are not completely personal and internal, that uncomfortable fact becomes apparent. Every controversial topic challenging the truth claims to Mormonism all boil down to that fact – revelation, as the LDS church defines it, just doesn’t work. It ends up producing as much bunk as it does produce reliable information, and I’d bet money that an actual study of the results would show that the chances of it producing reliable information is the equivalent of the odds of chance.

So, no, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus – err, I mean, there is no prophet receiving clear communication from God on this or any other issue. All there is, is a group of “so-called intellectuals and scholars” who do what every other “so-called intellectuals and scholar” does, creating results that the LDS church scorns – except when it is their own “so-called intellectuals and scholars”. Then they crib from the “so-called intellectuals and scholars” and send it out with the authority of The Brethren.

Anyone who’s interacted repeatedly with FAIR or MAD knows that, in the end, the apologists often end up looking like Keystone Cops. The Keystone Cops are running the show, not some prophet who can obtain REAL truth from God. And as entertaining as DCP’s meltdown on this topic has been (really, Dan? First insinuating that Brent is Dr. Scratch, and then nagging him to reveal the identity of Scratch so verify that he, Brent, isn’t really Scratch??? On a thread that had nothing to do with scratch??? Lolololololol), that is the real value of this episode, in my opinion. The Keystone Cops are running the show.

Let’s all bow our heads and give thanks for this fine moment. Greg Smith has given us a gift that will not stop giving. I thought nothing could top Scott Lloyd’s previous gift (describing “folk Mormons” as ignorant and stubborn), but I was wrong. Never underestimate the Keystone Cops.

[_beastie]

Mordecai gave a good summary on MAD:

Not familiar with this episode, so I’m trying to wrap my head around this. Let me reiterate the facts and criticisms and correct me where I am wrong:

The facts:
1. A letter signed by Secretary Watson on official letterhead, dated 1990, is circulated by “anti-Mormons”, thus resulting in a flood of questions to FARMS concerning the church’s official position on the Hill Cumorah.

2. Bill Hamblin writes to the First Presidency seeking clarification on the matter. To combat the 1990 letter, Watson provides a new letter signed and dated April 23, 1993 on official letterhead.

3. On the same day (April 23, 1993) evidently Brent Hall receives a fax (promised from a phone call “the other day” with Watson) from an unknown Carla Ogden who types the same (“boilerplate”) response right on the coversheet itself.

4. Brent Hall attaches his own cover letter to the fax coversheet and disseminates “about a half dozen copies made to Hamblin, Sorenson, and a few others.” Of which the fax copy that we have today was evidently found in Sorenson’s files.

The criticisms:
1. If the objective was to quell the hoopla generated by the 1990 letter, an unsigned response on a fax coversheet by an unknown Carla Ogden would be woefully inadequate in light of the signed statement by the Secretary himself on official letterhead.

2. Bill Hamblin seems to endorse the superiority of the formal letter by citing it instead of Brent’s fax coversheet in the JBMS (as evidently had copies of both).

3. Assuming both Brent and Bill were independently seeking the same documentation unbeknownst to each other, it seems likely their efforts should have come to light with Watson being the common denominator, since Watson talked with Brent before composing the letter to Hamblin.

4. Since Watson prepared the formal letter the same day the fax went out, why doesn’t Watson simply fax the formal letter?

Pay attention to bullet 4 in particular. I think that is a crucial question.

[_beastie]

Arrgh. Sorry I have to post multiple posts, my browser keeps jumping around when the post gets too long.

Point 4 is important. Sure, people may send out missives containing the same information on the same day to multiple sources, but normally they just send out copies of the first document they produced. In this case, we are asked to believe that they didn’t do that, but instead, created an entirely new document, saying essentially the same thing, but worded slightly differently, not signed, and not sent on formal letterhead. That just makes no sense. People tend to do what is easiest and causes the least amount of additional work, which would be to simply fax a copy of the formal response actually signed by Watson.

This is another reason I believe that the fax IS the Watson document. I seriously doubt there is another document that mysteriously disappeared. In my view, the fallibility of human memory explains the insistence of DCP and Hamblin that there was a separate, formal letter signed by Watson. Looking at Hamblin’s use of the quote in his article:

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

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

As others have pointed out, the word “correspondence” leaves the door open to a fax. And if Carla Ogden was Watson’s secretary, as seems to be universally assumed, then it also makes sense to say it was “from” Michael Watson. So his reference in his actual article seems consistent with using the Ogden fax as the source (omitting the words that he disagrees with).

It’s just his current statement that is inconsistent with the fax really being the Watson letter, and his current insistence could be attributed to the vagaries of human memory, as could DCP’s.

[_TAK]

DCP

I had never, until yesterday, even thought of the possibility that Brent might be connected with my Malevolent Stalker, let alone seriously considered it. It hadn't occurred to me. I don't say that he is my Malevolent Stalker (though, of course, I can't rule that out), but they now seem to me linked in some interesting way that I hadn't recognized before. That seems pretty obvious, even beyond reasonable dispute, and I see no reason to withdraw the observation.

As an aside comment and all due respect to the good Dr Scratch.. I don't believe for a moment that DCP thinks Brent and Scratch are the same.. rather.. he has been bettered by Brent and needs to trash Brent infront of the tbms in this back handed comment.. Typical FARMs ..

[_Gadianton]

One thing that's downright hilarious about this new revelation is that it would seem the only person familiar with the contents of the Church's "semi-official" publication as DCP now puts it, is the apostate Brent Metcalfe. That the MI has been digging around FARMS offices for years in search of their holy fossil, a mere copy of an original hastily-written fax of dubious origin or a mythical official letter lost or taken back into the heavens by an angel, when all they had to do was read their own encyclopedia published on their own website, officially christens the Second Watson letter episode as the Mopologetic Comedy of Errors of All Time.

Of course, DCP's quick integration of this news to bolster the case that FARMS didn't just invent the letter and fax doesn't work. This news should make the MI even more suspicious to those who believe the invention theory.

And for the rest of us, it is still clear that Hamblin's source was the Ogden fax. And now there are further questions raised about the source of the fax and it's dubious connection to the brethren. Let's recount how this likely went down:

- Hall places a call to Watson (but possibly spoke to someone else) and tells him/her about concerns over anti-Mormonism.
- Hall mentions the article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism as evidence for their viewpoint, that this work commissioned by the brethren should hold some sway for the debate.
- The person on the phone is busy, but mentions the matter will be clarified. The person asks again what the EoM said and hastily jots down a paraphrase. Note at this point Hall's claim that Watson said, "The FP wish to clarify..." is dubious. How could Watson know within the very time frame of the phone call establishing the problem that the FP wanted to clarify the problem?
- The person on the other end faxes back exactly what Hall wanted to hear.
- Hall distributes as a clarification from Watson.
- Hamblin was one of those mentioned having received the fax as the apologists themselves have said -- pretty much everyone saw the fax -- and interprets it as a letter from watson. Given that he and DCP were the only ones who didn't get copies of the fax (according to them) but saw the letter along with everyone else, and no one else has ever mentioned seeing two sources, we have a common extant source -- the Ogden letter.

At this point, the best route for the apologists is to make an ad hoc change in direction now that Brent has done their homework for them, and forget about the letters and faxes and use their Encyclopedia. Though this is not without its problems. For one thing, the apologists have never relied on this encyclopedia to establish credibility for anything -- they clearly aren't intimately familiar with the volumes which were such a failure that they can't even be purchased in print anymore. The Oaks and Maxwell faction may have oversaw the Encyclopedia, but this in no way guarantees that it's even "semi-official" as DCP says. We'd need some statements from the brethren themselves about this. And Oaks and Maxwell are not in the First Presidency.

What we have then, is an official statement from the First Presidency establishing an Chapel Mormon idea.

And at best the apologists have an encyclopedia entry from a fellow member from FARMS claiming what FARMS believes already and the possibility that two apostles who oversaw the project as a whole happened to ratify that particular statement and the FP would have been OK with this had they known about it.

Bottom line -- The Chapel Mormons still have the upper hand. And the idea that the FP clarified themselves through Watson directly to Hamblin on official letterhead is more suspicious than ever.

[_Pokatator]

..........

What we have then, is an official statement from the First Presidency establishing an Chapel Mormon idea.

And at best the apologists have an encyclopedia entry from a fellow member from FARMS claiming what FARMS believes already and the possibility that two apostles who oversaw the project as a whole happened to ratify that particular statement and the FP would have been OK with this had they known about it.

Bottom line -- The Chapel Mormons still have the upper hand. And the idea that the FP clarified themselves through Watson directly to Hamblin on official letterhead is more suspicious than ever.

Which is why I have stated that this is a win for Meldrum.

Has Meldrum used this bit of information to make his case?

I don't know. But why should he not?

[_beastie]

As an aside comment and all due respect to the good Dr Scratch.. I don't believe for a moment that DCP thinks Brent and Scratch are the same.. rather.. he has been bettered by Brent and needs to trash Brent infront of the tbms in this back handed comment.. Typical FARMs ..

One thing that's downright hilarious about this new revelation is that it would seem the only person familiar with the contents of the Church's "semi-official" publication as DCP now puts it, is the apostate Brent Metcalfe. That the MI has been digging around FARMS offices for years in search of their holy fossil, a mere copy of an original hastily-written fax of dubious origin or a mythical official letter lost or taken back into the heavens by an angel, when all they had to do was read their own encyclopedia published on their own website, officially christens the Second Watson letter episode as the Mopologetic Comedy of Errors of All Time.

Exactly why this is a good demonstration of the Keystone Cops, who now apparently run the show. Their “grand pooh-bah” can only respond by flinging his version of pooh at Brent, in the hopes that the sight of flying pooh will distract everyone. Unfortunately for DCP, we can point and laugh at the flying pooh while simultaneously not losing focus on the real issue.

I think all exmormons should band together and write an official Thank You note to Greg Smith for delivering the Best Christmas Present Ever.