The Second Watson Letter

[_antishock8]

On July 31st, 2008 at the behest of Mr. Peterson I wrote Mr. Watson a letter requesting clarification reference "the Second Watson Letter". Whenever Mr. Peterson paints himself into a bit of a corner he blithely suggests to the critic that he or she ask the person he is defending.

Well, just so we're clear I did write him a letter, and I never received an answer.

It's now on record, that suggesting a critic ask someone Mr. Peterson is defending reference an apologetic point is a waste of time, and yet another diversion tactic by the Mormon church's most notable apologist.

Shameful.

------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Watson,

At the behest of Mr. Daniel C. Peterson, I’m writing this letter to you to request a copy of your correspondence with Mr. William Hamblin reference what is now called the “2nd Watson Letter”. I know this sounds funny that your name would be attached to an apologetic discussion between critics and Mormon apologists, but it has. The bottom line is this:

Critics use your first letter reference the location of the Hill Cumorah to rebut Mormon apologists’ claims that there are two Hills Cumorah.
The “2nd Watson Letter” that you purportedly wrote to Mr. Hamblin essentially backs away from the claim the Hill Cumorah is located in New York. The problem is Mr. Hamblin and Mr. Peterson both say the letter has been lost, and now destroyed.

I was wondering if you have a copy of that second letter, and if you would make it available to me. Mr. Peterson thinks that if someone asks, you would provide the letter, or a clarifying statement. Critics think that a “nobody” won’t get a response from someone who works in the capacity that you do.

To summarize, apologists say there is no “official position/doctrine” on the location of the Hill Cumorah. Critics use your first letter, because you were the Secretary to the Office of the First Presidency, and responded on official letterhead that your statement was a declarative on Mormon doctrine. Regardless, apologists assert you didn’t have the authority to address official doctrine. As for me, I’m just interested in whether or not you actually wrote a “2nd letter” to Mr. Hamblin that backed away from your earlier statement. Your response would not only be a pleasant surprise, but appreciated.

V/R
XXXX X. XXXXX
XX XXXXX XX.
XXXX, NC XXXXX




( o )( o )

[_rcrocket]

Whereas I have no opinion one way or the other as to whether the Second Watson letter exists (except to say that if it existed it would cut against my view that the LGT is a bunch of hooey) it is common to lose letters. I don't see the need to make such a big deal about the bona fides of people all the time.

[_Joey]

Shock,

I too wrote Watson back in 2004 when I challenged Peterson and Hamblin on this issue. So for me it's been 4 years of waiting!

You will never get Hamblin to discuss this letter in a forum where he is not protected (ie; where mods kick u off the board for seeking the truth!). What niether Peterson nor Hamblin want to address is a couple of things. First, Watson comes out as a liar under any questioning or positioning of comparing the two letters. Second, even a casual reading of comparing the first letter to what is included in thw footnote to Hamblin's FARMS article shows that the supposed two statements of Watson are mutually exclusive. The claim of Hamblin does nothing to change what was stated in the first letter from the office of the First Presidency. If Hamblin had any confidence in his claims, he could come here and explain. He won't. He and Peterson know the hole they have dug and undoubtedly have been muzzled by the the boys on North Temple.

If I am wrong, they will speak up here.

[_Gadianton]

Whereas I have no opinion one way or the other as to whether the Second Watson letter exists (except to say that if it existed it would cut against my view that the LGT is a bunch of hooey) it is common to lose letters. I don't see the need to make such a big deal about the bona fides of people all the time.

Is that so? You have mentioned in the past that some individuals from the "inner circle" of FARMS drove you from the organization. Did your views on the LGT have anything to do with this?

[_rcrocket]

Nope.

Nobody drove me from the FARMS organization. I was never a part of it in the first place. I merely published two pieces.

I was de-invited from lds-apologetics@yahoo.com. The list owner, whom I didn't know and didn't recognize as a FARMS editor, didn't like my style. That list is not FARMS.

Certainly my eviction had nothing to do with the LGT. Nada. I think that there is plenty of room for belief among LDS apologists (and I am not in that group) for those who hold to the hemispheric model.

I certainly know, for a certainty that if somebody stood up in a sacrament meeting and gave an entire talk bearing testimony to the LGT he or she'd likely be admonished by a knowledgeable priesthood leader, while somebody who gave an entire talk about the fact that Indians are all descended from Lehi there'd be no criticism. Of this I am certain (I am repeating myself.)

[_Gadianton]

rcrocket,

I was de-invited from lds-apologetics@yahoo.com. The list owner, whom I didn't know and didn't recognize as a FARMS editor, didn't like my style. That list is not FARMS

What was it about your style he didn't like? And did the participants there have anything to do with the L-Skinny listserver?

I think that there is plenty of room for belief among LDS apologists (and I am not in that group) for those who hold to the hemispheric model.

Hmm. I'll wait for a Review article to come out that criticizes Sorenson in favor of the hemispheric model before I buy into that.

I certainly know, for a certainty that if somebody stood up in a sacrament meeting...

I think everyone not involved in an apologetic coup intended to take over the entire doctrinal life of the church would agree with you.

[_Joey]

Nobody drove me from the FARMS organization. I was never a part of it in the first place. I merely published two pieces.

Sounds you like you had as many credentials as this Roper guy they call a scholar over at the MADB board. I guess perception is more reality when you live in Provo.

[by the way I have paid Latham millions over the years when they represented the banker on our gaming deals. Fortunately I had Baronsky and the folks at Milbank representing us as the issuer. Quality was a bit easier to see in business deals than in the apologetic works at FARMS that never seem to find an audience outside of Provo!]

[_Gadianton]

by the way, here's my theory on the 2nd Watson Letter.

I believe that there was a second letter. I believe that the letter was for "eyes only" of certain apologists. I believe that the letter clearly stated a concession, but that it was made clear the letter was to be conveniently lost or destroyed. Proof of this is the fact that a confirmation of the letter or a reprint or restatement of the contents will not be provided and the apologists will not seek it out.

That way, the apologists can display to themselves that, "See, look, we got a letter from the First Presidency agreeing that Internet Mormonism is now true" and feel vindicated. But while this will be believed merely by assertion by Internet Mormons, the lack of hard evidence allows Chapel Mormons to be skeptical, and hence, there is less risk they'd become confused.

[_Joey]

Gad,

I do not believe there were two letters from the Office of the First Presidency. More likely there was an email from Watson giving some sort of "ooops" reply after the FARMS indicated how the letter issued in 1990 was a problem for their credibility or book sales.

But if you look at the letter from 1990 and the supposed footnote in Hamblin's FARMS article, one can see the "dodging" that was attempted.

The statement from the First Presidency letter in 1990 explicitly states:

" The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon."


Hamblin's article in FARMS contains a supposed quote from Watson attributed to a "corresponsdence" that 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 second statement does nothing to refute the statement issued from the Office of the First Presidency in 1990. It merely states what everyone already knows -- "there is no conclusive evidence". It does not retract from what the bretheren stated as their conclusion within the letter to Bro. Brooks in 1990.

This is precisely why Hamblin and Peterson will show no documents on this supposed "second letter". It never existed. The words of may have been real, but it does not change the letter from the First Presidency issued in 1990. The two statements are mutually exclusive.

In Provo, and on the campus of BYU or at MADB, this will suffice as "end of discussion". But where those who will actually read and use their brains, it is obvious Hamblin's article is just to satisfy the cog-dis minds of Provo.

It also serves as the most viable and logical reason why neither you nor I will never receive a response to our letters, in spite of Peterson's superficial suggestion.