2nd Watson Letter just found!'

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!

I implore Dr. Peterson to come clean before he takes the Maxwell Institute down with him.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Ray A]

Given that DCP is the editor of the FARMS Review, but never of the Journal, there had to be some article in the FARMS Review that "the entire text of [Brother Watson's] response (apart from the greeting and the signature) was published".

Hamblin's Journal article is also filed under Transcripts.

Reprinted from Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1

Transcripts link.

[_Ray A]

Let’s go back to Brent’s bombshell Post No. 422.

Let me play “devil’s advocate” here and look at other portions of DCP’s ZLMB posts (my emphasis, contra Brent’s):

Daniel Peterson 1
ZLMB Community Member
Posts: 195
(8/29/01 5:50:16 pm)

I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, but I remember when this letter first came to the attention of the dishonest mercenary hacks and pseudoscholars at FARMS, of whom I am one.

We contacted Michael Watson and the First Presidency's office, and, as I recall, Brother Watson said "Ooops!"

It shouldn't be taken seriously, though I have no doubt that many will take it as canonical.

Daniel Peterson 1
ZLMB Community Member
Posts: 205
(8/29/01 10:27:29 pm)

As I say, I'm fuzzy on the details. I would have to ask some of the others who were involved to be sure. But, as I remember, Brother Watson said that he had simply dashed the letter off without really giving the issue much thought, simply because he had never really considered the matter and didn't think there was much dispute about it.

It was also probably around that time that I had a surprising conversation with a general authority -- not a high ranking one, but certainly higher ranking than Michael Watson (who is not, in and of himself, a general authority at all) -- who was then serving in the area presidency in Mexico. He is dead now, but was surely among the most conservative of the Brethren in just about every regard imaginable. So I was very surprised when he commented, offhandedly, that he had been down jeeping around on the flanks of the Hill Cumorah just the previous week. (This was about the time of October conference.) I asked WHERE. He said, "Down near Veracruz." Astonished, I said, "You mean, YOU think that the Nephite Cumorah was in Mexico?" "Sure," he said. "It's the only place that fits all the facts."

I agree.

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 Church does not have, and never has had, an official position on the matter. Believe me, if FARMS were routinely contradicting an official stand of the Church, we would have heard about it by now.

Edited by: Daniel Peterson 1 at: 9/1/01 9:44:04 am

The question is to what extent did Michael Watson reflect “the Church’s” stand? We can gather from DCP’s phone call to the Office of the FP that “standard” letters are indeed sent out. Palmer’s 1981 book, and Sorenson’s 1984 Ensign articles reflect a Mesoamerican setting, and Sorenson wrote that, paraphrasing in my words, “we may need to do some rethinking”. The latter of course being an official Church publication. That the “Watson letter” should reflect the traditional view, may have been the reason he needed to be “clued in”.

The bottom line, it seems to me, and maybe I’m wrong, is that since Sorenson/Palmer and others threw the “traditional view” into chaos, the Church may have then adopted a neutral or non-committal position, which was not immediately reflected in “official letters” post that revision.

However, in the final analysis, it still shows that scholars, be they Sorenson, Palmer, FARMS, whomever, still pull great weight with the leaders.

[_Nimrod]

Let’s go back to Brent’s bombshell Post No. 422.

Let me play “devil’s advocate” here and look at other portions of DCP’s ZLMB posts (my emphasis, contra Brent’s):

Daniel Peterson 1
ZLMB Community Member
Posts: 195
(8/29/01 5:50:16 pm)

I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, but I remember when this letter first came to the attention of the dishonest mercenary hacks and pseudoscholars at FARMS, of whom I am one.

We contacted Michael Watson and the First Presidency's office, and, as I recall, Brother Watson said "Ooops!"

It shouldn't be taken seriously, though I have no doubt that many will take it as canonical.

Daniel Peterson 1
ZLMB Community Member
Posts: 205
(8/29/01 10:27:29 pm)

As I say, I'm fuzzy on the details. I would have to ask some of the others who were involved to be sure. But, as I remember, Brother Watson said that he had simply dashed the letter off without really giving the issue much thought, simply because he had never really considered the matter and didn't think there was much dispute about it.

It was also probably around that time that I had a surprising conversation with a general authority -- not a high ranking one, but certainly higher ranking than Michael Watson (who is not, in and of himself, a general authority at all) -- who was then serving in the area presidency in Mexico. He is dead now, but was surely among the most conservative of the Brethren in just about every regard imaginable. So I was very surprised when he commented, offhandedly, that he had been down jeeping around on the flanks of the Hill Cumorah just the previous week. (This was about the time of October conference.) I asked WHERE. He said, "Down near Veracruz." Astonished, I said, "You mean, YOU think that the Nephite Cumorah was in Mexico?" "Sure," he said. "It's the only place that fits all the facts."

I agree.

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 Church does not have, and never has had, an official position on the matter. Believe me, if FARMS were routinely contradicting an official stand of the Church, we would have heard about it by now.

Edited by: Daniel Peterson 1 at: 9/1/01 9:44:04 am

The question is to what extent did Michael Watson reflect “the Church’s” stand? We can gather from DCP’s phone call to the Office of the FP that “standard” letters are indeed sent out. Palmer’s 1981 book, and Sorenson’s 1984 Ensign articles reflect a Mesoamerican setting, and Sorenson wrote that, paraphrasing in my words, “we may need to do some rethinking”. The latter of course being an official Church publication. That the “Watson letter” should reflect the traditional view, may have been the reason he needed to be “clued in”.

The bottom line, it seems to me, and maybe I’m wrong, is that since Sorenson/Palmer and others threw the “traditional view” into chaos, the Church may have then adopted a neutral or non-committal position, which was not immediately reflected in “official letters” post that revision.

However, in the final analysis, it still shows that scholars, be they Sorenson, Palmer, FARMS, whomever, still pull great weight with the leaders.

Maybe. And then again, Maybe Not. With help from another poster at the MADHouse, beastie has pointed out that some scripture study guide currently on the LDS Church's website that spells out the One Cumorah (New York) stance, and does not leave room for the non-doctrinal approach of FARMS. This is backed by the 10/16/1993 Watson letter.

That prompted comments of perhaps a FP duplicity--One Cumorah stance for the Chapel Mormons, and as a thrown-bone, no doctrine on the Cumorah geography for FARMS and Internet Mormons. This would explain the lesser provenance, less authoritative Ogden Fax.

Of course, right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing could also be at play. Unfortunately for DCP and Hamblin, until they get their stories straight, it comports with the evidence and they stick to it, they will keep fumbling around like Keystone Cops.

[_Ray A]

Maybe. And then again, Maybe Not. With help from another poster at the MADHouse, beastie has pointed out that some scripture study guide currently on the LDS Church's website that spells out the One Cumorah (New York) stance, and does not leave room for the non-doctrinal approach of FARMS. This is backed by the 10/16/1993 Watson letter.

That prompted comments of perhaps a FP duplicity--One Cumorah stance for the Chapel Mormons, and as a thrown-bone, no doctrine on the Cumorah geography for FARMS and Internet Mormons. This would explain the lesser provenance, less authoritative Ogden Fax.

I think that's a fair summary. And the leaders must have a hell of a time, considering so many past statements by their own supporting the "traditional view". What to do, eh?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I applaud DCP for calling the FP. Then again, this is something he should have taken care of years ago.

As for Hamblin's tale, it is problematic on a number of levels. For one thing, I have always been of the understanding that the "2nd Watson Letter" was produced in response to Hamblin's circa 1993 *inquiry* concerning the FP's position.... I.e., that he and DCP & Co. had phoned Watson in order to demand answers pertaining to the 1st Watson Letter.

I guess my question is, Why did Bill Hamblin find it necessary to contact Watson clear back in 1985 (or thereabouts)?

[_Nimrod]

I applaud DCP for calling the FP. Then again, this is something he should have taken care of years ago.

So why now?

Alternative One: the Ogden Fax letter got out and DCP and Hamblin saw its inferior provenance crumbling in the face of the 10/16/1990 real Watson letter (but I think airing out the Ogden Fax was somewhat wanted, because in the 14 days from Dr. Greg Smith posting about it being sent to him, he could have been persuaded that 'it must've gotten lost in the postal', or that Dr. Greg Smith did not realize that it was proprietary to FARMS and once received could not post to the FAIRwiki--to Dr. Smith's credit, this did not happen, whether due to his own integrity, the integrity of DCP or the fear by DCP/FARMS of exposing themselves if they even asked Dr. Smith not to upload the Ogden Fax).

Alternative Two: the needling over the past week caused DCP in order to stop the annoyance to make the call to the Office of the FP.

Alternative Three: the Board dissections of his early explanations caused DCP out of genuine inquiry to make the call to the Office of the FP.

Alternative Four: the internal chatter at FARMS and its patronage community became too load (as a consequence of the Board chatter), DCP had no alternative to being digging into Hamblin's story (first by texting/e-mailing Hamblin who responded by e-mail, then by asking colleagues at BYU about the origins of the phrases in question, and ultimately calling the Office of the FP to see if it had a copy of the '2nd Watson Letter'--which it did not--followed up by more texting/e-mailing to Hamblin who now claims it was a pre-1985 rather than a 4/23/1993 letter from Watson).

I think what explains DCP making the call now rather than several years ago is the internal chatter now, as a result of the surfacing of the Ogden Fax. So I think Alternative Four is the most likely of the four alternatives, and I suspect now DCP will disengage on the topic. Too much FARMS blood is already on the floor for him to continue.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Alternative Four: the internal chatter at FARMS and its patronage community became too load (as a consequence of the Board chatter), DCP had no alternative to being digging into Hamblin's story (first by texting/e-mailing Hamblin who responded by e-mail, then by asking colleagues at BYU about the origins of the phrases in question, and ultimately calling the Office of the FP to see if it had a copy of the '2nd Watson Letter'--which it did not--followed up by more texting/e-mailing to Hamblin who now claims it was a pre-1985 rather than a 4/23/1993 letter from Watson).

I think what explains DCP making the call now rather than several years ago is the internal chatter now, as a result of the surfacing of the Ogden Fax. So I think Alternative Four is the most likely of the four alternatives, and I suspect now DCP will disengage on the topic. Too much FARMS blood is already on the floor for him to continue.

I think you may be right, Nimrod. My feeling is that the apologists are on the defensive these days. They are facing budget shortfalls, and Meldrum is a major-league problem. If you consider the confluence of all these different factors: Meldrum, DCP's testimony site, DCP's "withdrawal" from MDB, the explosive revelations concerning the Watson Letter(s), and now Dr. P.'s strange behavior in light of the information from my "informant," I think it's reasonable to assume that his contacting of the FP is a function of his attempts to "come clean," as it were. All these various pressures weighed on him, and at long last, he did the right thing and contacted the FP.

[_Dr. Shades]

That prompted comments of perhaps a FP duplicity--One Cumorah stance for the Chapel Mormons, and as a thrown-bone, no doctrine on the Cumorah geography for FARMS and Internet Mormons. This would explain the lesser provenance, less authoritative Ogden Fax.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

As I explained long ago on the definitive website on the subject, "[A] dichotomy has been created: Mormonism as interpreted by the apologists, and Mormonism as interpreted by the average member and by the prophets themselves."

That the First Presidency itself sends different answers to different people all but proves that they, too, are aware of the dichotomy between Internet Mormons and Chapel Mormons and say whatever they need to say in order to keep both sides happy.

[_beastie]

I just posted this at MAD, and thought some of you all might be interested in it, as well.

I noticed something else odd, from DCP’s earlier ZLMB posts on the topic, which Brent shared in post #422:

Daniel Peterson 1
ZLMB Community Member
Posts: 205
(8/29/01 10:27:29 pm)


As I say, I'm fuzzy on the details. I would have to ask some of the others who were involved to be sure. But, as I remember, Brother Watson said that he had simply dashed the letter off without really giving the issue much thought, simply because he had never really considered the matter and didn't think there was much dispute about it.

It was also probably around that time that I had a surprising conversation with a general authority -- not a high ranking one, but certainly higher ranking than Michael Watson (who is not, in and of himself, a general authority at all) -- who was then serving in the area presidency in Mexico. He is dead now, but was surely among the most conservative of the Brethren in just about every regard imaginable. So I was very surprised when he commented, offhandedly, that he had been down jeeping around on the flanks of the Hill Cumorah just the previous week. (This was about the time of October conference.) I asked WHERE. He said, "Down near Veracruz." Astonished, I said, "You mean, YOU think that the Nephite Cumorah was in Mexico?" "Sure," he said. "It's the only place that fits all the facts."

I agree.

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 Church does not have, and never has had, an official position on the matter. Believe me, if FARMS were routinely contradicting an official stand of the Church, we would have heard about it by now.

We are now being told that some UR-Cumorah text was created by the FP around 1981, or at the very least, prior to 1985. And yet Watson, despite having shared that UR text in 1985, turned around in 1990 and affirmed the one Cumorah theory. Even more, DCP, in 1990, is surprised – no, astonished that a GA believes in the two Cumorah theory.

Now why would DCP be astonished that a GA who ranks higher in authority than Watson believes in the two Cumora theory, if, indeed, a UR text had been provided by the FP as early as 1981?

While this may cause anxiety amongst believers here who appear wedded to Hamblin/Peterson’s Unassailable Memories Theory, I see very little reason to believe that any of the printed references were ever using the 1985 letter as a source. I see many reasons to believe that the printed references were all using the Ogden fax as a source. Moreover, since the 1985 letter has disappeared, and the intervening years all provided numerous people all conflating the 1985 text with the Ogden fax, I think that there is very little chance we can ever know, with any degree of certainty, what the 1985 letter actually contained. It may have contained the same language in the Ogden fax, or it may have contained something else the people’s memories later conflated with the Ogden fax. There is no conspiracy or active dishonesty that need be involved, simply fallible human memory combined with a bit of inattention in regards to proper sourcing.

For me, the more interesting aspect of this has turned out to be how eagerly believers are willing to believe just about any theory that supports the apologists, no matter how strained and seemingly insignificant, and, of course, the fact that the brethren are aware of the dichotomy within the church and seem to encourage it.