2nd Watson Letter just found!'

[_Nimrod]

DCP, 8/29/2001 on ZLMB:

The First Presidency certainly doesn't need FARMS approval for their statements. But their secretary perhaps needed to be clued in on the real issues somewhat before he wrote a letter expressing the long-standing, commonsensical, but probably incorrect idea that the location of the final Nephite battle was in modern-day New York state.

The FP doesn't NEED FARMS approval. Whew, I'm glad to hear that.

But FARMS does NEED to school the FP's secretary that it's no longer intellectually acceptable for him to perpetuate what had been the Church's longstanding doctrine for about 170 years, as evidenced in the writing of many general authorities. A doctrine that DCP considers "commonsensical, but probably incorrect".

This is the arrogance that makes FARMS so repugnant. This is the FARMS modus operandi that dispels any suggestion that the FP received revelation to correct the LDS Church's stance on this issue. Whether embodied in a Lost 2nd Watson Letter or not, this is FARMS spoon feeding Secretary F. Michael Watson to then issue the Lost 2nd Watson Letter/Ogden Fax.

[_Ray A]

What did the Mopologists get themselves into?

Whether it was a letter or a fax DCP/Hamblin saw is now almost irrelevant. They had contact with "Oops Watson", and "clued him in".

It's almost painful. The whole letter/fax discussion was a red herring.

[Guest]

So what is DCP trying to hide or minimize, exactly? That critics have been right all along and that the apologists are influencing the brethren?

* * * * *
---The Brethren want nothing more to do with this whole affair, as they realize it will make the Church look bad. DCP, Hamblin, and others at FARMS are ordered to fix the problem.
* * * * *
---DCP, Hamblin, & et al. tell the Brethren that they have written some "language" that will help solve this problem, and ask that the text be re-sent to them both as the 2nd Watson Letter, and in the form of the Ogden Fax. Or, conversely, the Brethren agree to have the text re-disseminated so it will seem as if they (i.e., the General Authorities) actually wrote and approved it (which they sort of do).

Protecting the FP is clearly a secondary objective of FARMS in this affair, and how it was handled. That's why the Lost 2nd Watson Letter is the lesser provenance Ogden Fax. It gives the FP an out either way. If it becomes necessary for the FP to embrace the long standing position of the Church that the Book of Mormon Cumorah is in New York state, the FP can dismiss the Ogden Fax as unauthorized, not even bearing Secretary Watson's name much less his signature. Just not authorized by the FP.

On the other hand, if someday science develops to the point it completely eviscerates the possibility of the Book of Mormon Cumorah events as having occurred in New York state, the FP can 'own' the Ogden Fax as its own and distance itself from the traditional Church position.

If the Ogden Fax had been what Hamblin billed it, a 2nd Watson Letter--from and signed by Watson--the FP could not take the New York state zag without the embarrassment of having repudiated the early general authorities. If anything is ever found in New York state verifying the Book of Mormon Cumorah events occurred there, the lesser Ogden Fax allows the FP to claim that it has all along known that was the geography.

Unless the FP has been reduced to being a mere tool of FARMS, the convenience of this duplicity for the FP explains why Watson was willing to go along with the FARMS suggestion, and have Carla Ogden send the unsigned fax.

Keeping these options open to the FP might very well be the reason that DCP does not do as Gadianton suggests, and ask the FP to issue a new version of the Lost 2nd Watson Letter.

[_Eric]

Wow. This is great stuff. What did the Mopologists get themselves into?

I can't believe what I'm reading.

I'm reminded of James Frey's fiasco. DCP should direct FARMS to institute a similar refund program. In this case, readers can tear out Hamblin's JBMS article and mail it to the Maxwell Institute for their $14.95 back.

[_Ray A]

On the MAD board Mfbuk wrote:

It really and truly is much ado about absolutely nothing. Unless I am wrong, and am not seeing it. So what is why I challenged the other side to express precisely why any of this has any importance whatsoever, and all we have heard from is ck, referring to a less than stellar earlier post.

I am still seeing nothing whatsoever.

I wouldn’t say this is about core character issues, nor does it reflect on the basic morality of either DCP or Hamblin. I agree with 007 that they are not “knaves”. That would be overkill. But what this potently signifies (again) is that apologetics is largely made up of inexcusable spin, and to some extent – dishonesty, but only insofar as they fail to recognise their faults and their weaknesses, and defend, defend, defend at almost any cost.

So if you can learn any one thing from this, let it be that you cannot trust apologetic spin and interpretations. That isn’t a suggestion that you can trust critics, either, and you should equally examine their claims, but to call critics “jackals” filled with “smoke, mirrors and innuendo” is a demonstration of your own current entrenchment in apologetic spin. I am sure that virtually every critic in this “Compound” can say, “I was once an apologist”.

As you are, we once were, as we are, you may become. And when you do, you’ll more clearly see the real reasons why.

[_Doctor Scratch]

This took a whole lot of prying. A lot of credit needs to be given to Joey, antishock, Ref, Nimrod, and all the other critics who have been on DCP's and the apologists' case all this time. No wonder The Good Professor is constantly kicking up dust, calling people names like "stalker" or "Pal Joey," or whatever else. If he can turn everything into a big joke, then maybe people will quit taking their very natural and merited suspicions seriously. But the persistence paid off.

It really makes me wonder: if we continue to dig more deeply into the question of whether apologists are paid, say, or the alleged smear campaigns against critics like Mike Quinn....will we turn up something similar? In my recollection, the things that have set DCP off the most have been:

---The 2nd Watson Letter
---Apologists Getting Paid
---The Smear Campaign Against Mike Quinn
---Apologists Set Apart by the Brethren
---Peer Review at FARMS

If these are the special "sore spots," are they also the areas that merit the most thorough inquiry?

[_Nimrod]

As you are, we once were, as we are, you may become. And when you do, you’ll more clearly see the real reasons why.

Nice couplet, Ray A. I wonder what the late GBH might think of it?

[_Ray A]

Nice couplet, Ray A. I wonder what the late GBH might think of it?

"I don't know that we teach that"?

[_Nimrod]

This took a whole lot of prying. A lot of credit needs to be given to Joey, antishock, Ref, Nimrod, and all the other critics who have been on DCP's and the apologists' case all this time. No wonder The Good Professor is constantly kicking up dust, calling people names like "stalker" or "Pal Joey," or whatever else. If he can turn everything into a big joke, then maybe people will quit taking their very natural and merited suspicions seriously. But the persistence paid off.

It really makes me wonder: if we continue to dig more deeply into the question of whether apologists are paid, say, or the alleged smear campaigns against critics like Mike Quinn....will we turn up something similar? In my recollection, the things that have set DCP off the most have been:

---The 2nd Watson Letter
---Apologists Getting Paid
---The Smear Campaign Against Mike Quinn
---Apologists Set Apart by the Brethren
---Peer Review at FARMS

If these are the special "sore spots," are they also the areas that merit the most thorough inquiry?

Dr. Scratch,

Are you suggesting our 2010 agenda? and a good agenda it will be.

Happy New Year!!!

[_RockSlider]

...
---Apologists Getting Paid

Have I accused wrongly? Is not the Maxwell institute staff now under BYU's payroll? Have they not all had to sign the Honor Code?