In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[Zakuska]

You're welcome to attempt to make that charge stick in a published article that will be subject to comment from scholars.

I deny your claim, and say, in contrast, that, while confirmation bias is a problem for all human beings, it constitutes no greater problem for serious Mormon apologetic scholarship than for other areas of scholarship.

Prove your case. And not merely with anecdotal meanderings on a message board. Write it up in a systematic way and publish it somewhere where it will attract the attention of scholars.

May we add... be sure to submit it for peer review first?!

[SlackTime]

May we add... be sure to submit it for peer review first?!

Ummm, how would that help, being reviewed at CARMS or RFM would give it greater legitimacy?

- SlackTime

[dblagent007]

You're welcome to attempt to make that charge stick in a published article that will be subject to comment from scholars.

I deny your claim, and say, in contrast, that, while confirmation bias is a problem for all human beings, it constitutes no greater problem for serious Mormon apologetic scholarship than for other areas of scholarship.

Prove your case. And not merely with anecdotal meanderings on a message board. Write it up in a systematic way and publish it somewhere where it will attract the attention of scholars.

Oh sure. I'll just put my life on hold to put that together for you. The confirmation bias I speak of is readily apparent since there is one conclusion that is never in doubt, no matter the evidence.

I have found another reference to the Watson letter fax in an article by Alan Miner located here. He describes the second Watson letter this way in a footnote:

[xvi] F. Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency, FAX from the Office of the First Presidency to FARMS, 23 April 1993.

Do you have any idea what he is referring to?

As for your new theory that the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and the Ogden fax are pre-dated by a couple of years by some other text, let's run through the timeline.

First Watson letter - 16 October 1990

Encyclopedia of Mormonism - Mar 1992

I take it then that your theory is that this mysterious, heretofore unknown text was either not available at the time Watson sent the first letter out or he was unaware of it. Is that correct?

[Zakuska]

Ummm, how would that help, being reviewed at CARMS or RFM would give it greater legitimacy?

- SlackTime

To the eyes of the deluded yes.

[wenglund]

Oh sure. I'll just put my life on hold to put that together for you. The confirmation bias I speak of is readily apparent since there is one conclusion that is never in doubt, no matter the evidence.

I don't know that he is asking you to put your life on hold. I think he is asking you not to put your brain on hold. He is asking you to spell out the systematic case you presumably have already made in your own mind (which would be necessary in order to avoid your ironically having jumped to this conclusion via confirmation bias) such that you believe that confirmation bias is supposedly "readily apparent" in the mysterious "one conslusion".

Feel free to make your systematic case here (preferrably on your own thread) if publishing it in places that would attract scholarly attention may as yet be beyond you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

If I may be enlightened, what/where is this "compound" that is being refered to on this thread? Who is "Scratch" and what is he?

Are you going to at least acknowledge that I have answered your OP?

[Daniel Peterson]

Oh sure. I'll just put my life on hold to put that together for you.

The two alternatives are (1) that you simply continue to level the allegation without attempting to substantiate it (perhaps, ironically, in illustration of your own "confirmation bias"), or (2) that you cease making the allegation.

Your choice.

The confirmation bias I speak of is readily apparent since there is one conclusion that is never in doubt, no matter the evidence.

I addressed that distortion of the truth in my essay "The Witchcraft Paradigm: On Claims to 'Second Sight' by People Who Say It Doesn't Exist," most directly in the short section "8. Aren't Latter-day Saint peer reviewers predisposed by their bias to be uncritical of pro-Mormon manuscripts?"

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=18&num=2&id=621

I have found another reference to the Watson letter in an article by Alan Miner located here. He describes the second Watson letter this way in a footnote: . . . Do you have any idea what he is referring to?

It seems pretty clear that he's referring to Carla Ogden's fax to Brent Hall. (I'm not sure that I've ever met Alan Miner, but I know that Brent Hall knows him.) I'm told, by the way, that the relevant FAIR wiki articles have all been modified to include the fact (just confirmed by somebody connected to FAIR) that "Carla Ogden was and still is a Senior Executive Secretary for the Office of the First Presidency."

I believe that you're confused in assuming that Alan Miner is referring to Michael Watson's letter.

As for your new theory that the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and the Ogden fax are pre-dated by a couple of years by some other text, let's run through the timeline.

First Watson letter - 16 October 1990

Encyclopedia of Mormonism - Mar 1992

I take it then that your theory is that this mysterious, heretofore unknown text was either not available at the time Watson sent the first letter out or he was unaware of it. Is that correct?

That seems a reasonable assumption to me. I see nothing particularly "mysterious" about the idea that an in-house document might have been formulated at some point, from which both the Carla Ogden fax and the Michael Watson letter drew (and from which it was intended that such communications draw), and from which the Encylopedia of Mormonism, advised by Elders Oaks and Maxwell, also drew. It may even have been created in connection with the production of the quasi-official Encyclopedia, which, as Elders Oaks and Maxwell surely understood, would be expected to explain the state-of-the-question on numerous issues, including Book of Mormon geography. If ever there was a time to seriously think about what the Church wanted to say regarding such matters, this would be a good time.

Whether or not that was the case, however, it seems highly unlikely to me that commonly asked questions wouldn't lead to the development of standard boiler-plate language in a busy office like that of the First Presidency. And, I might add, the fact that very similar, if not identical, language has now shown up in a letter from the secretary to the First Presidency, in a fax sent by a senior executive secretary in the Office of the First Presidency, and in an article published in the quasi-official Encyclopedia of Mormonism and approved by at least two members of the Council of the Twelve scarcely weakens the force of that language.

By the way, my Malevolent Stalker is apparently now accusing me of accusing Michael Watson of having plagiarized the Encyclopedia of Mormonism!

(Which, for the record, I'm not, particularly in view of the suggested time-line that I provided just above, which -- quite reasonably, in my opinion -- posits an internal Church document of some sort that underlies the Encylopedia of Mormonism itself, as well as the subsequent Carla Ogden fax and the subsequent Michael Watson letter.)

Man. I'm going to have to swear off paying attention to the antics in the Compound. It's almost impossible to avoid getting sucked into matters of tertiary importance (not to say sheer idiocy). There are genuinely substantive and important things that I have to do -- some related to apologetics, but most not -- and they languish while I respond to the nonsense, the trivia, and the conspiratorial fantasies that spring up like toadstools over at the Compound. I feel a long-overdue New Year's resolution coming on.

[dblagent007]

It seems pretty clear that he's referring to Carla Ogden's fax to Brent Hall. (I'm not sure that I've ever met Alan Miner, but I know that Brent Hall knows him.) I'm told, by the way, that the relevant FAIR wiki articles have all been modified to include the fact (just confirmed by somebody connected to FAIR) that "Carla Ogden was and still is a Senior Executive Secretary for the Office of the First Presidency."

I believe that you're confused in assuming that Alan Miner is referring to Michael Watson's letter.

If Miner was referring to the fax, it is a bit odd that he attributed it to Watson, just like Hamblin did, when in fact it came from Ogden. The only substantive difference between Miner's attribution and Hamblin's is the reference to it being a fax while Hamblin is silent on exactly the type of correspondence it was. The most probable explanation seems to be that both referred to the fax and misattributed it to Watson when it was actually from Ogden.

I understand that isn't compatible with your memory, but since you have repeatedly stated that it was hazy and vague, I can't see how it is reliable enough to overcome the actual documentary evidence.

That seems a reasonable assumption to me. I see nothing particularly "mysterious" about the idea that an in-house document might have been formulated at some point, from which both the Carla Ogden fax and the Michael Watson letter drew (and from which it was intended that such communications draw), and from which the Encylopedia of Mormonism, advised by Elders Oaks and Maxwell, also drew. It may even have been created in connection with the production of the quasi-official Encyclopedia, which, as Elders Oaks and Maxwell surely understood, would be expected to explain the state-of-the-question on numerous issues, including Book of Mormon geography. If ever there was a time to seriously think about what the Church wanted to say regarding such matters, this would be a good time.

Whether or not that was the case, however, it seems highly unlikely to me that commonly asked questions wouldn't lead to the development of standard boiler-plate language in a busy office like that of the First Presidency. And, I might add, the fact that very similar, if not identical, language has now shown up in a letter from the secretary to the First Presidency, in a fax sent by a senior executive secretary in the Office of the First Presidency, and in an article published in the quasi-official Encyclopedia of Mormonism and approved by at least two members of the Council of the Twelve scarcely weakens the force of that language.

While this is an interesting theory, you don't have any hard evidence to back it up. The hard evidence is that: (1) Watson issues a letter stating that the Hill Cumorah is the one in New York, (2) the Encyclopedia or Mormonism is published about 17 months later with the revised statement, and (3) the Ogden fax contains a rehash of the statement in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. If you want your theory to be taken seriously, you need to produce some actual evidence rather than wild speculations about what could have happened.

The evidence seems to show the apologetic tail wagging the doctrinal dog.

[Daniel Peterson]

If Miner was referring to the fax, it is a bit odd that he attributed it to Watson, just like Hamblin did, when in fact it came from Ogden.

Odd things happen.

The only substantive difference between Miner's attribution and Hamblin's is the reference to it being a fax while Hamblin is silent on exactly the type of correspondence it was.

But he has explicitly and expressly said that he remembers it to have been a letter, and to have been a letter from Michael Watson. Which is precisely how I remember it, as well.

The most probable explanation seems to be that both referred to the fax and misattributed it to Watson when it was actually from Ogden.

Except that both Professor Hamblin and I agree in remembering it to have been a letter, and to have been a letter from Michael Watson.

I understand that isn't compatible with your memory, but since you have repeatedly stated that it was hazy and vague, I can't see how it is reliable enough to overcome the actual documentary evidence.

I see that you're willing to define for me, rather than allowing me to do so, precisely what I remember and what I don't. I appreciate the kindness, but must respectfully decline it.

You may or may not be aware that one of my Malevolent Stalker's favored techniques for his character assassinations is to keep demanding more and more information until he finds something that seems to contradict some prior answer, or that can be spun to seem contradictory or to reflect disreputably upon his target's character (typically mine). In that light, reasonable people will immediately understand why I'm disinclined to play the game with him. Since, in fact, memories do fade, the longer one plays his game, the more likely it is that he will eventually find something which which to blacken one's character.

While this is an interesting theory, you don't have any hard evidence to back it up.

True. But it's a reasonable scenario, and it's not all that important anyway.

The hard evidence is that: (1) Watson issues a letter stating that the Hill Cumorah is the one in New York,

This first proposition might more adequately be revised to say that "Watson sends a letter to an individual stating that the Hill Cumorah is the one in New York."

Getting it more accurate highlights the real significance of the next items:

(2) the Encyclopedia or Mormonism is published about 17 months later with the revised statement,

A quasi-official statement, approved by at least two members of the Council of the Twelve, that, very clearly, by its very nature, was intended for a general audience.

and (3) the Ogden fax contains a rehash of the statement in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

And so, thus, a fax that was sent by the Office of the First Presidency not merely to a private individual but to a representative of an organization that publishes on the topic of the fax (among many other subjects, of course), reiterates a quasi-official statement, approved by at least two members of the Council of the Twelve, that, very clearly, by its very nature, was intended for a general audience.

And, according to at least two eyewitnesses who saw it, a letter, conveying precisely the same ideas in exactly the same language as the fax, was sent to Professor William Hamblin of BYU, bearing the signature of the then-secretary to the First Presidency.

Clearly, the language of the Watson letter and of the Ogden fax and of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism bears considerable weight, both because it postdates the private 1990 letter and because, unlike the private 1990 letter, it was manifestly intended to be published, and was published.

If you want your theory to be taken seriously, you need to produce some actual evidence rather than wild speculations about what could have happened.

I really don't care a bit whether my theory (positing the existence of an internal document from which the Encyclopedia and the Watson letter and the Ogden fax all draw), which rests on reasonable assumptions rather than your "wild speculations," is taken seriously. It's of no particular importance. It simply makes good sense of the data, and seems to me very likely to be true.

.

[mfbukowski]

I am not a very bright guy, so I would appreciate it if someone from the "other side" explains to me why this is important at all.

Keep it simple so I can grasp it, ok? Perhaps our illustrious Mr. Metcalfe could do that to save me from the grip of this cult which as abducted me.

Please save me from Mormonism and explain to me why my testimony should now be shattered.

[jmordecai]

At that time, one would not fax something formal. Faxes were regarded as temporary quick communications which preceded something important, perhaps summarizing what was on it's way.

They were regarded much as a quick text message today. You would never text something formal, would you?

I agree, I wouldn't text something formal. Hence my point, why its bizarre to think that an informal fax coversheet does anything to help stop the bleeding from a officially signed formal letter causing all the raucous in the first place.

[Mortal Man]

• 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 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 that has been suggested.
  [Carla Ogden to Brent Hall, fax, 23 April 1993.]

• Because the New York site does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of BOOK OF MORMON GEOGRAPHY, some Latter-day Saints have looked for other possible explanations and locations, including Mesoamerica. Although some have identified possible sites that may seem to fit better (Palmer), there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site that has been suggested.
  [Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992), s.v. CUMORAH.]

Bill wasn't the honored beneficiary of some kind of 1993 papal bull from the Office of the First Presidency, he was the proud recipient of a courtesy quote from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published the previous year.

Nice.

This, my friends, is why Brent gets paid the big bucks.

I see nothing particularly "mysterious" about the idea that an in-house document might have been formulated at some point, from which both the Carla Ogden fax and the Michael Watson letter drew (and from which it was intended that such communications draw), and from which the Encylopedia of Mormonism, advised by Elders Oaks and Maxwell, also drew. It may even have been created in connection with the production of the quasi-official Encyclopedia, which, as Elders Oaks and Maxwell surely understood, would be expected to explain the state-of-the-question on numerous issues, including Book of Mormon geography.

Brent hands Dan a shovel, whereupon Dan proceeds to dig himself into a very deep hole.

Now Dan must produce two "missing" documents. However, unlike the second Watson letter (which still has a tiny chance of turning up) the misplaced FPDBMG (First Presidency Declaration on Book of Mormon Geography) manuscript has zero chance of ever being found. Why? Because the word prints in Brent's post are clearly Provo-speak; i.e., the FP doesn't talk like that.

More to come...

Ooh goodie! I'll get another bag of popcorn...

[jmordecai]

The position of secretary to the First Presidency has some weight. Watson (and his successor in that position) have office staff to whom they can and do assign such perfunctory duties as sending out faxes. Perhaps, in the interest of clarity, Watson should have included his own signature on the fax. But he didn't. So what? Does that render it invalid? If so, how?

"So what?" I'm more confused now.

Formal letter officially signed by the Secretary on letterhead = invalid.

Unsigned fax coversheet by an unknown staffer = valid.

Say I accept that the fax is valid. Using your criteria above, what's makes the 1990 invalid then?

[gtaggart]

Nice.

This, my friends, is why Brent gets paid the big bucks.

Brent hands Dan a shovel, whereupon Dan proceeds to dig himself into a very deep hole.

Now Dan must produce two "missing" documents. However, unlike the second Watson letter (which still has a tiny chance of turning up) the misplaced FPDBMG (First Presidency Declaration on Book of Mormon Geography) manuscript has zero chance of ever being found. Why? Because the word prints in Brent's post are clearly Provo-speak; i.e., the FP doesn't talk like that.

Ooh goodie! I'll get another bag of popcorn...

You're kidding, right? For you, it's essentially "liar, liar, pants on fire"--and on the slender thread that "the FP doesn't talk like that." Nope, everyone in the COB is a dunce, especially Oakes and Maxwell. Have you even read this thread? And Peterson must produce two, count 'em two, documents why? "Clearly Provo-speak"? Sheesh!

[cksalmon]

"So what?" I'm more confused now.

Formal letter officially signed by the Secretary on letterhead = invalid.

Unsigned fax coversheet by an unknown staffer = valid.

Say I accept that the fax is valid. Using your criteria above, what's makes the 1990 invalid then?

That is the question, to be sure. The answer, as far as I can tell, is that Watson personally corrected (or, clarified, if you will) his earlier correspondence via a second letter sent to Dr. Hamblin. But, that's precisely the point at which all the apparent controversy begins, since we don't have access to the Second Watson Letter (other than what Dr. Hamblin has quoted, and which quotation contains the exact same words as the fax).

Apparently, the staffer is indeed known. But, no, the Ogden fax is not the second clarifying letter from Watson (though textually identical), but a completely separate document that happened to be faxed on the same date to Brent Hall. The fax appears to borrow language directly from EoM, per BM. DCP proposes the possible existence of another, earlier source document that predates EoM, the fax, and the Second Watson Letter and that might have formed the textual basis for all three.

I think that is a fairly accurate, fairly unbiased summary of where things stand, for what it's worth. Note here that I haven't charged DCP or Dr. Hamblin or anyone else with willful deceit. And my bare bones summary is, of course, open to correction.

cks

[Hamba Tuhan]

I am not a very bright guy, so I would appreciate it if someone from the "other side" explains to me why this is important at all.

That IS the question, and I myself wouldn't mind an answer.

From what I can tell--and this is very hazy to me--the issue seems to be related to an attempt to construct a presumed divide between apologists and prophets or to insinuate that Church leaders have lost control of doctrine or something like that. Then the whole 'internet Mormon/chapel Mormon' thing seems to come into play somehow as well. Like I said, I can't for the life of me follow it.

[rockslider]

That IS the question, and I myself wouldn't mind an answer.

From what I can tell--and this is very hazy to me--the issue seems to be related to an attempt to construct a presumed divide between apologists and prophets or to insinuate that Church leaders have lost control of doctrine or something like that. Then the whole 'internet Mormon/chapel Mormon' thing seems to come into play somehow as well. Like I said, I can't for the life of me follow it.

I'm a total novice at all of this scholarly study and debate. For me it boils down to:

Has a long standing (150+ year) doctrine suddenly changed? Of course DCP tells me it was never doctrine, but I'm an old school "Fable Mormon" and always believed this quote, given to me in another thread:

"In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired

words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their

words come to us through conferences, Church publications,

and instructions to local priesthood leaders.

[DanGB]

Can anyone here articulate how this language in the fax, be it from Carla or Watson, is relevant to correcting, changing or refuting what the Office of the First Presidency stated n the letter to Brother Brooks???????

What was stated in the two are entirely mutually exclusive. This "second fax" has no impact on the letter of 1990! What is the issue?

[cksalmon]

Can anyone here articulate how this language in the fax, be it from Carla or Watson, is relevant to correcting, changing or refuting what the Office of the First Presidency stated n the letter to Brother Brooks???????

What was stated in the two are entirely mutually exclusive. This "second fax" has no impact on the letter of 1990! What is the issue?

See here.

cks

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm a total novice at all of this scholarly study and debate. For me it boils down to:

Has a long standing (150+ year) doctrine suddenly changed?

So, basically, a certain subset of people--including some members but mostly apostates and critics--needs the second Watson letter and/or the Ogden fax to be 1) a lie, 2) a fraud, or 3) something written whilst a 'Mopologist' was holding a gun to the author's head in order to make it easier to shore up support for a particular folk doctrine? Does that about sum it up?

I guess the interesting question then becomes why. I suspect different groups of people will have different answers to that question. Anyone from the 'other camp' want to tackle this? Why is it so essential to your Weltanschauung and/or agendas that the Office of the First Presidency not be allowed to clarify that 'there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site that has been suggested'???

[Daniel Peterson]

Nice.

This, my friends, is why Brent gets paid the big bucks.

I agree that he's been paid every cent he deserves for the heroic and astonishing achievement of looking up an article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and revealing that secret, esoteric, inaccessible text to the world.

It's a good thing he has a cheering section here.

Brent hands Dan a shovel, whereupon Dan proceeds to dig himself into a very deep hole.

Now Dan must produce two "missing" documents.

I must?

Nothing whatsoever hinges on whether or not some folks in the leadership of the Church decided to agree on a brief standard-issue response before the publication of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, the sending of the Ogden fax, and the mailing of the Watson letter. It simply seems reasonable, not at all unlikely, and a very plausible explanation for the known facts. From the Compound's point of view, of course, my suggestion has the severe drawback of requiring no epic tale of deception and pretense and of leaving the Maxwell Institute entirely unharmed and its principal figures unexcommunicated. (Life if tough, and then you die.)

However, unlike the second Watson letter (which still has a tiny chance of turning up) the misplaced FPDBMG (First Presidency Declaration on Book of Mormon Geography) manuscript has zero chance of ever being found. Why? Because the word prints in Brent's post are clearly Provo-speak; i.e., the FP doesn't talk like that.

I hope you won't be offended that I don't out and out swoon at the sheer evidentiary power of your assertion.

Ooh goodie! I'll get another bag of popcorn...

There is another entertainment option that you might find even more gratifying and more intellectually significant.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Dan,

For what it's worth, by the way, after a meeting today on several completely unrelated subjects (don't want to feed the conspiracy theorists who would otherwise leap to the conclusion that this was a crisis-management council convened to help us master our panic on this epochal issue), I ran into a colleague who knows something about the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

I mentioned the manufactured Watson-letter teapot-tempest to him, and he replied that, as he understood it, the text that shows up in both the Carla Ogden fax and the Michael Watson letter had already been circulating for several years, and that, if he was not mistaken, the text of the Encyclopedia's "Book of Mormon Geography" article postdates that First Presidency text, and its language was deliberately worked into the Encyclopedia article at the suggestion of Elder Oaks and/or Elder Maxwell.

So the Encyclopedia of Mormonism text would, in that case, be dependent upon the text that appears in the Ogden and Watson communications -- or, more precisely, on some Church-generated document that was created prior to both of them, and from which both of them drew -- and not the other way around.

I have no idea whether this is true or not, but it makes complete sense to me. ... *snip!*

Really?

In what possible way would this "make[] complete sense" to you given your report of Mike Watson's contrition on ZLMB in 2001:

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.

[Bold red emphasis added.]

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

[Bold red emphasis added.]

In what way does your current ad hoc hypothesis comport with your 2001 portrayal of Mike Watson's alleged mea culpa as the direct result of FARMS' intervention?

Regards,

</brent>

Edit: Fixed a minor typo.

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[dblagent007]

In what way does your current ad hoc hypothesis comport with your 2001 portrayal of Mike Watson's alleged mea culpa as the direct result of FARMS' intervention?

It's called apologetic modus operandi #1: make up something plausible that can't be disproven but supports predetermined conclusion even though the actual evidence points to a different conclusion. Repeat as needed to account for new evidence.

[Daniel Peterson]

Really?

In what possible way would this "make[] complete sense" to you given your report of Mike Watson's contrition on ZLMB in 2001

I see no contradiction at all.

If you think you see a contradiction, I implore you to explain to me where you see it.

In what way does your current ad hoc hypothesis comport with your 2001 portrayal of Mike Watson's alleged mea culpa as the direct result of FARMS' intervention?

In every way, so far as I can tell.

Incidentally, all hypotheses are ad hoc. I realize that you and my friend Dan Vogel are enamored of the term ad hoc as a dismissive way of treating the ideas of those who dissent from you, but . . . well, I do not think that this word means quite what you think it means.

It's called apologetic modus operandi #1: make up something plausible that can't be disproven but supports predetermined conclusion even though the actual evidence points to a different conclusion. Repeat as needed to account for new evidence.

Ah. I see. You're a Compound kind of guy who will not grant that those who disagree with him operate in good faith.

My apologies. I hadn't understood that before.

(

[Scott Lloyd]

It's called apologetic modus operandi #1: make up something plausible that can't be disproven but supports predetermined conclusion even though the actual evidence points to a different conclusion. Repeat as needed to account for new evidence.

What "different conclusion" are you referrng to? That a respected academic journal would deliberately and falsely attribute a statement to a high-ranking staff member in the office of the First Presidency, with the exposure and almost certain consequences that such a stunt would entail? Aside from the dishonesty, that would be plain stupid. You're not making sense.