2nd Watson Letter just found!'

[_harmony]

Good grief!

How much more of a comedy of errors can this become?

An unnamed colleague. A lost document. An incorrect citation. Sloppy scholarship.

And these are the best of our best?

We're doomed.

[_Ray A]

According to an update on the FAIRwiki/FAIRMormon site:

The 1993 fax was sent by Senior Executive Secretary for the Office of the First Presidency, Carla Ogden, to Brent Hall of FARMS. (Sister Ogden continues to serve in this position as of 2009).

[_Dr. Shades]

There is another item that, in my opinion, hasn't been given the attention it deserves: Mr. Hamblin's deceptiveness. He originally quoted, ". . . there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site." The full text of the Ogden fax says, ". . . there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site that has been suggested." The inclusion of that last phrase would've undermined years of Mopologetic work by rendering John Sorenson's (and others') books irrelevant at best or untrue at worst. So I see why Hamblin felt the need to omit it. At the same time, the omission leaves out a key piece of information, and thus the omission is, in my reasoned opinion, an example of blatant, craven deception.

[_Ray A]

There is another item that, in my opinion, hasn't been given the attention it deserves: Mr. Hamblin's deceptiveness. He originally quoted, ". . . there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site." The full text of the Ogden fax says, ". . . there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site that has been suggested." The inclusion of that last phrase would've undermined years of Mopologetic work by rendering John Sorenson's (and others') books irrelevant at best or untrue at worst. So I see why Hamblin felt the need to omit it. At the same time, the omission leaves out a key piece of information, and thus the omission is, in my reasoned opinion, an example of blatant, craven deception.

I noted the same thing on page 8 of this thread:

Maybe Hamblin left out those last four words because he felt that a "specific site" (Mesoamerica) does match the Book of Mormon. If so, there is no acknowledgement [of the missing text] with ellipsis. Rather careless, really.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Okay. I was going to wait to see what DCP's next move would be, but I'm just going to post this.

The truth is that Brent's big revelation on the MADboard (i.e., about the text of the "2nd Letter" coming from The Encyclopedia of Mormonism), is not a revelation at all---at least not to some of us.

In fact, it was pointed out quite a while ago to DCP---in public---that the text of the "2nd Watson Letter", as quoted by Hamblin, is nearly identical to the entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. So, what Metcalfe told everyone wasn't exactly fresh news to DCP. He has known all along that the text came from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. This following comes from a post written in July of 2008:

This may have been pointed out previously, but I would note that portions of Watson's response are derived from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism's entry on "Cumorah," which was authored by David A. Palmer.

The 1993 Watson-Hamblin letter states:

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.

The EOM entry reads, in part:

Because the New York site does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Book of Mormon geography, some Latter-day Saints have looked for other possible explanations and locations, including Mesoamerica. Although some have identified possible sites that may seem to fit better (Palmer), there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site that has been suggested.

It's unclear to me whether the 1993 letter included a citation to the EOM entry.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7027&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=21

DCP's (retrospectively very odd) response was:

Interesting. I hadn't even thought to look.

Trevor pops in to yuk it up:

Damning evidence, positively damning! In trying to foist a bogus letter on their readers, Hamblin & Peterson have plagiarized the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, all the while confident that no one reads the damn thing. Of all the two-bit shenanigans....

And DCP sees it as an opportunity to joke the whole affair away:

Harumph! I'll have you know that we were paid considerably more than "two bits"!

No. Wait. Where's the edit function? How do I delete stuff?

Aieeee!

Somebody is impersonating me. Yes. That's it. I didn't write the line above about how much we were paid.

So, at the very least, he has been aware for over a year of the fact that the text of the purported 2nd Watson Letter came from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

My question is: Why would he sit on the information? What is he trying to hide here? If the story he's telling now would clear everything up, then why stay silent all this time?

[_beastie]

Strange that DCP acted as if he just discovered the connection:

For what it's worth, by the way, after a meeting today on several completely unrelated subjects (don't want to feed the conspiracy theorists who would otherwise leap to the conclusion that this was a crisis-management council convened to help us master our panic on this epochal issue), I ran into a colleague who knows something about the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

I mentioned the manufactured Watson-letter teapot-tempest to him, and he replied that, as he understood it, the text that shows up in both the Carla Ogden fax and the Michael Watson letter had already been circulating for several years, and that, if he was not mistaken, the text of the Encyclopedia's "Book of Mormon Geography" article postdates that First Presidency text, and its language was deliberately worked into the Encyclopedia article at the suggestion of Elder Oaks and/or Elder Maxwell.

So the Encyclopedia of Mormonism text would, in that case, be dependent upon the text that appears in the Ogden and Watson communications -- or, more precisely, on some Church-generated document that was created prior to both of them, and from which both of them drew -- and not the other way around.

I have no idea whether this is true or not, but it makes complete sense to me.

If DCP isn't playing some sort of game, his memory sucks.

[_Doctor Scratch]

If DCP isn't playing some sort of game, his memory sucks.

Yes, especially since he has known since July of 2008 that the Ogden/Watson text and the EoM text are related.

[_Ray A]

Yes, especially since he has known since July of 2008 that the Ogden/Watson text and the EoM text are related.

I'm sure he would have known this in 1993. He didn't express much surprise about Brent's revelation:

And now, thanks to your diligent efforts, readers learn that the very same thing that was told to Professor Hamblin in the letter that Michael Watson sent to him on First Presidency letterhead was also faxed to others from the Office of the First Presidency and, in addition to that, had been included, though not quite in precisely the same words, in the semi-official Encyclopedia of Mormonism (supervised by Elders Oaks and Maxwell) during the previous year. Plainly, this was no mere fluke. This was a very intentional statement, approved by leaders of the Church -- two members of the Twelve and the Office of the First Presidency, at last count. Thank you for helping to establish that even more clearly.

It seems undeniably obvious, by the way, that the insinuation that's been made against Professor Hamblin and myself over the past several years by several residents of the Compound, that we invented the text of the Watson letter ex nihilo, has been definitively laid to rest. That's progress! And, plainly too, the First Presidency doesn't appear to have been intimidated into adopting that position by a 1993 communication from Brent Hall, the FARMS office manager. Perhaps, now, the scales will begin to fall from the eyes of some in the Compound?

[_beastie]

So, basically, a certain subset of people--including some members but mostly apostates and critics--needs the second Watson letter and/or the Ogden fax to be 1) a lie, 2) a fraud, or 3) something written whilst a 'Mopologist' was holding a gun to the author's head in order to make it easier to shore up support for a particular folk doctrine? Does that about sum it up?

I guess the interesting question then becomes why. I suspect different groups of people will have different answers to that question. Anyone from the 'other camp' want to tackle this? Why is it so essential to your Weltanschauung and/or agendas that the Office of the First Presidency not be allowed to clarify that 'there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site that has been suggested'???

Hamba asked this question on MAD, and it deserves an answer.

For me, at least, the point isn’t that we “need” the second Watson letter to be a fraud, lie, or forced. The point is that the episode reveals something about how LDS apologia works. That’s why I keep referring to the Keystone Cops. It appears to consist of a lot of bumbling missteps.

But aside from that entertainment factor, there’s been a long-running dispute between some critics and apologists regarding how influential apologists are within the LDS church. In the past, “so-called intellectuals” were disdained by the LDS leadership, due to their firm conviction that truth was ascertained through revelation. It was apostate churches that weren’t led by Jesus himself that needed scholars to figure out what to believe. But the recent trend appears to be that apologists are becoming more influential on the brethren, and this episode demonstrates that. My belief is that this trend was directly caused by the increase in awareness of controversial issues due to the internet, and the inability of the brethren to adequately address those issues.

So this episode is fun for us for two reasons, in my opinion – it reveals how the sausage is made in the factory by the Keystone Cops, versus the fantasy of revelation, and it provides evidence that supports the critics’ long term suspicion, that apologists are influencing the brethren.

[_Gadianton]

the text of the Encyclopedia's 'Book of Mormon Geography' article postdates that First Presidency text, and its language was deliberately worked into the Encyclopedia article at the suggestion of Elder Oaks and/or Elder Maxwell.

Nooo! LOL!

Why don't they just say that the FP asked them to work in the language diliberately about all their favorite pet Mopologetic theories in the Review? Why doesn't DCP just say on every topic he posts on that the FP had deliberately asked him to work in the language of Scratch being a malevolent loon?

This is too much, and if any of it is true, then they've all screwed themselves with their careless handling of sources and lack of proper attribution. I'm more and more leaning in the favor of some kind of intentional deception going on here. This one they'll just have to write off as a loss and let it go.

The best thing they can do at this point, the only thing that will redeem them even a little -- and this won't prove they've been honest and forthright in the past on the matter -- is to get a clean FP message on FP letter head with the signatures of not Watson, but the actual First Presidency.

If the FP have been circulating this BS for years, and this statement represents an actual FP statement composed and signed by the FP, then given all the plagiarizing and shooting from the hip done in the name of proper attribution, the FP should have no damned problem composing the statement, signing it, and filing it away in a safe place.

The fact that FARMS can't get another statement means one of two things if not both:

a) FARMS is knee-deep in a lie they can't get out of.
b) The Brethren either do not endorse that position or otherwise unsure about their position.

Hey, the Brethren call DCP up all the time and bring him in to clarify what's afoot in anti-Mormonism? Why can't they help out the guy and return the favor? If I were DCP, I'd be pissed, next time the brethren called me in for my opinion on something, I'd rake Oaks over the coals and tell him we're getting our asses handed to us and made to look like a bunch of liars because the top brass can't sit down for thirty seconds, compose and sign a letter.