[LA Ute]

Here's what I am saying:

1. A letter like that one was definitely read, and I remember much of it. I am not saying the letter was never sent; I am questioning the accuracy of the copy everyone is referring to.

2. Why? Because I clearly remember discussing the letter with a couple of people at the time and all of us remarking about how elliptical it was. In essence, we were kind of chuckling about it and asking, "Well, if they're talking about oral sex why don't they just come out and say so?" (There have been-- and still are-- apostles who teach a lot about sexual conduct but may never have uttered the word "sex" in public.) So-- it struck me as odd that this version of the letter explicitly mentions oral sex, because the one I recall danced around that topic.

3. It raised my antennae even further to know that the purported copy of the letter being cited appears on LDS-Mormon.com. If you spend 2 minutes on that site you'll see that it is devoutly and thoroughly anti-Mormon.

So, counselor, put yourself in my shoes: Faced with a document with that provenance, in light with your own contrasting memories of the document's contents, would not just a little skepticism be warranted? I am shocked-- shocked!-- that a litigator of your experience would be so credulous about such a piece of paper. ;-)

It is true, by the way, that the letter (as I recall it) was a blip in time and I have heard nothing about it since-- until now. I do know that LDS priesthood leaders now have practically no latititude on the questions that may be asked in temple recomend interviews.

I may be all wet. But I'm asking the right questions!