2nd Watson Letter just found!'

[_Nimrod]

I would just like to take a moment to recognize that beastie girded up her loans and took her blade into the lions' lair today. A friend has reported that beastie did particularly well quoting out of some LDS Church study guide (which the self-delusional tried to re-state to read how they need it for 2 Cumorahs) and a long passage about B.H. Roberts (that apparently was barely touched by the self-delusional, even DCP).

Good-on, beastie, good-on.

That would be "loins". And I think you give MAD too much credit.

Thank you, harmony. Maybe loans was a Freudian slip, since Dr. Scratch says FARMS funding is in trouble and at some weird level of my brain I thought beastie was going to loan them money (oops, there I go starting to spin like DCP--my bad!).

Also, I promise to work harder at not giving MAD so much credit. Please feel free, as a moderator, to give me my come-uppance if and when I slip into to doing so in future.

[_beastie]

Even those who accept that BH Roberts was sincere in his doubts often dismiss them on the basis that he didn't have access to the FARMS/FAIR apparatus to help guide him. I thought your work over there was noble - but it's a point that they'd rather have lost than lose.

The only point I was trying to make with Roberts is that even someone as well informed as he was thought that revelation would be preferable to banging around on their own trying to figure it out. The context of that was my larger point that, at least to me, the most significant question in this whole episode is how much influence the apologists have over church leaders.

DCP has always maintained that they have little to no influence on church leaders. I think this episode calls that into serious question.

[_Danna]

Beastie, Have you seen the interesting use of sources in the FAIR BoMormon Anachronisms pamphlet by Michael Ash? Sorenson is cited as a primary source and not only is Ann Cyphers' name spelt wrong, but her ilmenite finds (beads and polished mirrors etc) have been turned into iron.

While critics have assured us that the Book of Mormon’s use of iron is anachronistic, recent research refutes this claim. A pottery vessel dating to around 300 A.D., for example, might have been used for smelting. A metallic mass within this vessel contained copper and iron. The archaeologist who made this find has also found a refined piece of iron in an ancient American tomb.6 Even one Book of Mormon critic (who questions the relationship between New World iron and Book of Mormon iron) acknowledges that the Olmecs of Central America (which correspond to logical Jaredite times/places) knew of and used “iron” as evidenced by iron mirrors.7
In 1996, a non-LDS Olmec specialist, Dr. Anne Cyphers, noted that several tons of iron have been excavated from those sites.8 Dr. William Hamblin, in a discussion with John Clark (of the BYU archaeology department) asserts that “a total of 10 tons of iron has been found at San Lorenzo, in several massive hordes, the largest of which was 4 tons. Before the discovery of these hordes, only a few pieces of iron were known. They were discovered by using metal detectors.”9 Olmecs mining iron sounds remarkably like the Jaredites: “and they did dig it out of the earth; wherefore they did cast up mighty heaps of earth to get ... iron.” (Ether 10:23.)

3 John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company and FARMS, 1985), 279.
4 Ibid., 283.
5 Ibid., 283-284.
6 Ibid., 284-285.
7 Deanne G. Matheny, “Does the Shoe Fit? A Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec Geography,” New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, edited by Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature, 1993), 289.
8 William J. Hamblin, “Talk on the Olmecs by Cypher,” posted 9/26/96 SAMU-L. Copy in my possession.
9 William J. Hamblin, “Supplement on Cyphers’ talk,” posted 10/2/96 SAMU-L. Copy in my possession.

[_beastie]

Danna,

No, I haven't read Ash's pamphlet in particular, but I'm not surprised. He's citing the exact Sorenson reference that I discovered was completely bogus. The problem is that this becomes an echo chamber, wherein apologists cite other apologists without bothering to check the original source in the first place.

Frankly, I wouldn't trust anything Sorenson asserts without checking the primary source myself. Other people have also discovered problems with his sources, like Matheny and Larsen. The funny thing is that I just checked TWO of his references, and BOTH were bogus. I can't imagine what I would discover if I were in a position to check more.

[_Dr. Shades]

Frankly, I wouldn't trust anything Sorenson asserts without checking the primary source myself.

This incident, along with the 2nd Watson Letter/Carla Ogden fax fiasco confirms the wisdom of the modus operandi I adopted long ago: Never believe anything a Mopologist says unless it is independently verified by a competent non-Mormon source.

[_Dr. Shades]

Doctor Scratch:

Thank you for giving us your proposed timeline of the events in the post at
viewtopic.php?p=282651#p282651. At the same time, I hope you don't think me presumptuous if I choose to respectfully disagree with several items in it.

I have a different timeline to propose. The reason I like it better--apologies in advance--is because I submit that it resists Occam's Razor and accounts for all the known facts better than anything yet proposed.

Here's my proposed timeline, along with my reasoning where appropriate:

1. The Tanners publish the "First Watson Letter."
2. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is published.
3. Some anti-Mormons in Texas use the First Watson Letter to counteract Mopologetic theories about Mesoamerica.
4. A concerned member contacts FARMS about this situation, and Brent Hall, office manager, is tasked with giving the member something in return. He may have simply taken this upon himself as part of his job duties.
5. Brent Hall contacts the Church Office Building and eventually gets connected to Watson.
6. Watson tasks Ogden with faxing Brent Hall back. Ogden simply follows what has then become standard protocol when answering members' questions: Copy-and-paste out of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Perhaps she is unaware of the First Watson Letter.
7. Brent Hall receives the fax and knows that it'll be of interest to his superiors at FARMS. Since the fax is unsigned and his original question is unknown, he types up his own memo explaining that he'd talked to Watson, quotes the fax, and then signs his memo. Or maybe he handwrites on copies of the fax itself. This becomes A) the "signature" that DCP remembers seeing, and it also becomes B) the source of the "First Presidency Letterhead" (the words at the top of the fax) that he remembers seeing. It also explains why the "letter"--Hall's memo--and Watson's "communication" both bear the same date. Thus, The "2nd Watson Letter" and the "Carla Ogden fax" are one and the same.
8. Bill Hamblin incorporates this information into his Journal of Book of Mormon Studies article.
9. Years pass. Critics inquire into the provenance of the unrevealed and undiscovered 2nd Watson Letter.
10. Gregory Smith becomes excited that the (supposed) Second Watson Letter is discovered, since it's the actual fax from the First Presidency's office, NOT Brent Hall's write-up and explanation of it.
11. DCP speculates on a mythical Ur-text that's supposedly the source of A) the EoM article, B) the 2nd Watson Letter, and C) the Carla Ogden fax (not realizing that B and C are the same item). His speculations are mistaken, because if such an Ur-text existed, then the First Watson Letter would have drawn from it, too.

What do you think?

.

[Guest]

5. Brent Hall contacts the Church Office Building and eventually gets connected to Watson.

6. Watson tasks Ogden with faxing Brent Hall back. Ogden simply follows what has then become standard protocol when answering members' questions: Copy-and-paste out of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Perhaps she is unaware of the First Watson Letter.

Dr. Shades, I'm not Dr. Scratch (lest DCP try to morph the two of us into one identity like he did with Metcalfe and Dr. Scratch), but I think there was a bit more spoon-feeding by Hall to Watson that your description here might suggest. The reasons are (a) the Ogden Fax mixes up the order of the phrases vis-a-vis the way they appear in EoM, and (b) the Ogden Fax omits from the EoM passage the example of Mesoamerica as one of the specific geography theories for Cumorah which are not, according Palmer (the author of that EoM entry), LDS doctrine (i.e., according to Palmer, no specific Cumorah geography is LDS doctrine). I think that the text in the Ogden Fax that was faxed back to FARMS was proposed by FARMS to Watson.

8. Bill Hamblin incorporates this information into his Journal of Book of Mormon Studies article.

For the reasons that DCP and Hamblin have been in the last week insistent that the source of Hamblin's quote was a letter, not a fax, and from Watson, not Ogden, when coupled with the high improbability of there being such a 2nd Watson Letter given what has been revealed this month, there are yet problems (at best for FARMS, yet a scholarly mystery) surrounding this point of your chronology that go unexplained.

EDIT: Grammar.

[_beastie]

I think dble007 brought up a crucial element on the MAD thread that was briefly mentioned earlier. He provided a link to the scripture study guide on the LDS site that says this:

http://scriptures.LDS.org/gs/c/79

A small hill located in western New York, United States of America. Here an ancient prophet named Moroni hid the gold plates containing some of the records of the Nephite and Jaredite nations. Joseph Smith was directed to this hill in 1827 by the resurrected Moroni to get these plates and translate a portion of them. This translation is the Book of Mormon.

Nephites gathered at Cumorah, Morm. 6: 2-4. Cumorah was in a land of many waters, Morm. 6: 4. Mormon hid the records in the Hill Cumorah, Morm. 6: 6. All but twenty and four Nephites were slain at Cumorah, Morm. 6: 11. We hear glad tidings from Cumorah, D&C 128: 20. Joseph Smith took plates from the Hill Cumorah, JS-H 1: 42, 50-54, 59.

Despite the strained spinning from apologists, this clearly supports the One Cumorah theory. So the church is quite content to keep teaching the One Cumorah, despite the "correction" in the Ogden fax. So the question is: how much influence are apologists really having, after all? Or are they being throw sops now and then to appease them? Yeah, sure, we'll send you a corrective fax, but don't expect us to change what we teach on our official website.

[_Dr. Shades]

. . . I think there was a bit more spoon-feeding by Hall to Watson that your description here might suggest. The reasons are (a) the Ogden Fax mixes up the order of the phrases vis-a-vis the way they appear in EoM, and (b) the Ogden Fax omits from the EoM passage the example of Mesoamerica as one of the specific geography theories for Cumorah which are not, according Palmer (the author of that EoM entry), LDS doctrine (i.e., according to Palmer, no specific Cumorah geography is LDS doctrine).

Are you referring to the phrase which says that the Book of Mormon doesn't match any setting of the Book of Mormon that has been proposed? If so, then Hamblin was the one who omitted it, not Ogden.

8. Bill Hamblin incorporates this information into his Journal of Book of Mormon Studies article.

For the reasons that DCP and Hamblin have been in the last week insistent that the source of Hamblin's quote was a letter, not a fax, and from Watson, not Ogden, when coupled with the high improbability of there being such a 2nd Watson Letter given what has been revealed this month, there are yet problems (at best for FARMS, yet a scholarly mystery) surrounding this point of your chronology that go unexplained.

Like what? I'm proposing that Hamblin incorporated the fax from Ogden into his article which he labeled a "communication" from Watson. If you agree with me that there isn't a 2nd Watson Letter, then what do you propose Hamblin did?

I'm not trying to challenge you here, I'm just trying to learn what you're proposing so I can modify my opinion if necessary.

[_harmony]

I'm proposing that Hamblin incorporated the fax from Ogden into his article which he labeled a "communication" from Watson. If you agree with me that there isn't a 2nd Watson Letter, then what do you propose Hamblin did?

Do you think it's possible that Hamblin labeled the communication as from "Watson" because it came from Watson's office? Even though it was sent by his assistant, it came from Watson's office, right?