I'm pretty certain that people who follow LDS apologetics would care *quite* a bit about the fact that the Church's main apologist was caught in a brazen and spectacular lie concerning a communication from the Office of the First Presidency.Do you really imagine that the general public knows or cares even slightly about that non-issue?
Then why the need for the deception? Their "position" was that the Book of Mormon took place in Latin America. It would seem that the goal was to ensure that (at least) the readership of the FARMS Review understood that the Brethren supported the Mopologetic position on the matter. It *shouldn't* have been important, but then Mopologetists have a way of getting involved in petty things, don't they?And it was never of central importance. Not to me and not to our position.
Okay, so I guess we're going with inadvertent delusion? He and Hamblin inarguably misrepresented that communication: that is not up for debate. They said publicly, in print, that the text was from a "second letter" from F. Michael Watson, and that is totally, inarguably wrong. It is 100% false: "flatly false," as Prof. P. is fond of saying. He can claim that this wasn't a "lie," to which I say: Okay, then what was it? An "accident"? A "mistake"? Could it be that Hamblin was the lone liar here, and that he deceived his pal DCP, telling him that it was a letter from Watson when it actually wasn't? (Problem: DCP claimed in writing that he had actually "seen" the letter!) Again: I'm willing to drop the "lying" accusation if he were to just admit that he was wrong, made a mistake, was the victim of Hamblin's lying, or whatever else. But at some point he's going to need to own the fact that the journal he was in charge of editing published something that was a brazen misrepresentation of a communication from the Office of the First Presidency. That falsehood, as far as I know, is still sitting there in the pages of that old issue of the FARMS Review.And I would have to be a massively stupid fool, as a member of the Church and a professor at the Church’s flagship university, to have brazenly and publicly lied about a communication from the Office of the First Presidency. Moreover, as a believing Latter-day Saint who accepts the First Presidency as prophets, seers, and revelatory, I would never, ever, knowingly seek to misrepresent their position. Never.
And I'll add that it's completely obvious why he keeps coming back to this "never of central importance" and "never...knowlingly misrepresent their position" business: it's meant to minimize the fundamentally deceptive nature of what he and Hamblin did. The idea is: it "doesn't matter" if they lied about Watson having sent the letter, because, hey, the Church's "actual" position is that it doesn't have a position! The problem with this is that *some* loyal Latter-day Saint gets thrown under the bus in this scenario no matter what. Implicitly, DCP is saying that F. Michael Watson is/was an "idiot" who rather stupidly was peddling false doctrine.
am always really friendly and good with these kids but for what ever reason I lost it on them, and told them "do you what time it is, and do you have any idea what the church teaches?" I told them to look at the Gospel Topic Essays and for what ever reason, I don't know why, I told them to look up Emily Partridge and her Temple lot testimony, and shut the door. Then I felt like a huge a-hole and went back out and told them my frustrations was not directed at them, but at the brethren sending you out not knowing the truths. This all happened in about two minutes. I have felt like a d--k all week.
