DiscussMormonism.com

Nimrod wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 11, 2023 6:47 pm

In the 1980s, the FARMS bunch fall in line behind John Sorenson's LGT, requiring there be two Cumorahs--one in New York and the other in MesoAmerica.

In the late 1980s, Ludlow's Encyclopedia of Mormonism includes an entry that gives room to the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah being outside of New York, perhaps in MesoAmerica.

In 1990, the First Presidency issues a letter that the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah is the one identified by that name by Joseph Smith in New York. This creates dissonance between the FARMS crowd's beliefs and academic sensibilities.

In April 1993, FARMS' Brent Hall feeds the text of part of the entry in the Encyclopedia to Carla Ogden, who turns around and faxes such back to FARMS.

In 1995, FARMS' Bill Hamlin refers to the date and substance of the Ogden fax as a letter of clarification from Watson, the ecclesiastical Secretary to the First Presidency, and under whose signature the 1990 letter was issued.

In 2009-10, a board war discussion takes place when Matt Roper (of now NAMIRS) alerts Greg Smith that the "second Watson letter" has been found (as NAMIRS was in the process of moving to a new building). DCP doubles down--claiming he'd held the second Watson letter in his own hands, saw it with his own eyes--and impugned 3 or 4 other NAMIRS types as having so done as well. Then Hamlin comes clean that the Carla Ogden fax is all there was for a "second Watson letter."

In January 2022, Watson attests that the 1990 letter that the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah is that drumlet in New York was reviewed and approved by all of the First Presidency before it went out and there has not since then been any hedging by the First Presidency.

DCP (formerly of NAMIRS) looks incredibly dishonest in this entire affair. At least Bill Hamlin came clean about it before he died.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 11, 2023 6:52 pm

Nimrod wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 11, 2023 6:47 pm

In the 1980s, the FARMS bunch fall in line behind John Sorenson's LGT, requiring there be two Cumorahs--one in New York and the other in MesoAmerica.

In the late 1980s, Ludlow's Encyclopedia of Mormonism includes an entry that gives room to the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah being outside of New York, perhaps in MesoAmerica.

In 1990, the First Presidency issues a letter that the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah is the one identified by that name by Joseph Smith in New York. This creates dissonance between the FARMS crowd's beliefs and academic sensibilities.

In April 1993, FARMS' Brent Hall feeds the text of part of the entry in the Encyclopedia to Carla Ogden, who turns around and faxes such back to FARMS.

In 1995, FARMS' Bill Hamlin refers to the date and substance of the Ogden fax as a letter of clarification from Watson, the ecclesiastical Secretary to the First Presidency, and under whose signature the 1990 letter was issued.

In 2009-10, a board war discussion takes place when Matt Roper (of now NAMIRS) alerts Greg Smith that the "second Watson letter" has been found (as NAMIRS was in the process of moving to a new building). DCP doubles down--claiming he'd held the second Watson letter in his own hands, saw it with his own eyes--and impugned 3 or 4 other NAMIRS types as having so done as well. Then Hamlin comes clean that the Carla Ogden fax is all there was for a "second Watson letter."

In January 2022, Watson attests that the 1990 letter that the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah is that drumlet in New York was reviewed and approved by all of the First Presidency before it went out and there has not since then been any hedging by the First Presidency.

DCP (formerly of NAMIRS) looks incredibly dishonest in this entire affair. At least Bill Hamlin came clean about it before he died.

Thanks for the recap, Nimrod! Do you have a link or a screen cap showing where Hamblin “came clean”?

I was referring to Hamlin's having in 2009-10 on MADD corrected DCP that the Ogden fax was all that there was in 1995 when in his footnote he'd claimed a second letter from Watson. I do not have a screen shot of that MADD encounter, but I suppose that it was discussed at length in that lengthy MD thread that was recently restored.

DCP wrote:From: Daniel Peterson <daniel_peterson@BYU.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:47:22 -0700

To: William Hamblin <XXXXXXXXXX>

Conversation: The Watson Letter

Subject: The Watson Letter

Bill:

We continue to be assaulted, with ever increasing ferocity, as liars and as senile.

So I contacted the Office of the First Presidency, and asked them whether they could locate a 1993 letter from Michael Watson to you. They have computerized records going back to 1987. They could not locate such a letter.

Are we liars? Are we senile?

Dan

DCP wrote:Professor Hamblin has just surprised me with something that I hadn't known, and hadn't suspected: "You are senile," he writes from Cordoba, Spain (my emphasis). "I published the letter in 1993. However, I received it while still in graduate school =before 1985."

DCP wrote:You and others are welcome to go with your deductions.

I'll trust to my memory, corroborated by Professor Hamblin, of having seen and read and handled a letter from Michael Watson.

I saw and read and handled a letter from Michael Watson, though, and so did Professor Hamblin.

The plain fact is that the Office of the First Presidency indisputably sent out a communication bearing the information given in the JBMS article. My Malevolent Stalker and some of his disciples can make all the noise they want about which secretary in the Office of the Presidency that communication came from and what its precise date was, but those are really, beyond reasonable debate, extraordinarily minor and tangential issues.

2022 Interview with Michael Watson wrote:Question: Were you (Michael Watson) later directed by the First Presidency to “clarify” or “correct” the content of the 1990 letter?
Michael Watson: Absolutely not. There was nothing to correct. It’s a simple factual statement.
Question: Did you later clarify or correct the statement in a subsequent communication, fax or letter about Cumorah?
Michael Watson: No, there was no need.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 11, 2023 7:24 pm

As I said above, go with Watson. Ignore the confusion that was generated by Hamblin and DCP. I don’t know what to make of everything they said about communication with Watson, but Watson is very clear.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 11, 2023 7:24 pm

As I said above, go with Watson. Ignore the confusion that was generated by Hamblin and DCP. I don’t know what to make of everything they said about communication with Watson, but Watson is very clear.

DCP wrote: Professor Hamblin has just surprised me with something that I hadn't known, and hadn't suspected: "You are senile," he writes from Cordoba, Spain (my emphasis). "I published the letter in 1993. However, I received it while still in graduate school =before 1985."

• something that I [Prof P] hadn't known
• [something that I, Prof P] hadn't suspected
• You [Prof P]are senile
• I [Prof H] received it [WL2] while still in graduate school

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 11, 2023 6:52 pm

Nimrod wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 11, 2023 6:47 pm

In the 1980s, the FARMS bunch fall in line behind John Sorenson's LGT, requiring there be two Cumorahs--one in New York and the other in MesoAmerica.

In the late 1980s, Ludlow's Encyclopedia of Mormonism includes an entry that gives room to the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah being outside of New York, perhaps in MesoAmerica.

In 1990, the First Presidency issues a letter that the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah is the one identified by that name by Joseph Smith in New York. This creates dissonance between the FARMS crowd's beliefs and academic sensibilities.

In April 1993, FARMS' Brent Hall feeds the text of part of the entry in the Encyclopedia to Carla Ogden, who turns around and faxes such back to FARMS.

In 1995, FARMS' Bill Hamlin refers to the date and substance of the Ogden fax as a letter of clarification from Watson, the ecclesiastical Secretary to the First Presidency, and under whose signature the 1990 letter was issued.

In 2009-10, a board war discussion takes place when Matt Roper (of now NAMIRS) alerts Greg Smith that the "second Watson letter" has been found (as NAMIRS was in the process of moving to a new building). DCP doubles down--claiming he'd held the second Watson letter in his own hands, saw it with his own eyes--and impugned 3 or 4 other NAMIRS types as having so done as well. Then Hamlin comes clean that the Carla Ogden fax is all there was for a "second Watson letter."

In January 2022, Watson attests that the 1990 letter that the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah is that drumlet in New York was reviewed and approved by all of the First Presidency before it went out and there has not since then been any hedging by the First Presidency.

DCP (formerly of NAMIRS) looks incredibly dishonest in this entire affair. At least Bill Hamlin came clean about it before he died.

Very good. You’re catching on.
F.A.R.M.S. = Plagiarizers, from Sorenson on down.

https://tinyurl.com/LEHills1924bookM2C

https://tinyurl.com/LEHills1924bookLostCumorah

https://tinyurl.com/LEHills1924BookAd

“Two Cumorahs” - what a joke.
It’s all online outside of the censorship of Book of Mormon Central, Interpreter Foundation, FAIRLDS.

malkie wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 11, 2023 10:04 pm

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 11, 2023 7:24 pm

As I said above, go with Watson. Ignore the confusion that was generated by Hamblin and DCP. I don’t know what to make of everything they said about communication with Watson, but Watson is very clear.

Also, when he wrote the one and only Watson letter, Watson was acting in an official church capacity, as secretary to the FP.

When he allegedly held a never-again-seen "second Watson letter" (WL2), Prof P was not acting in any such capacity.

In general, I think it's worthwhile for us to remind ourselves every so often that, unless corroborated by an official communication, anything that is hypothesized by apologists is simply a more-or-less supported idea with no more authority than a more-or-less supported idea by anyone else, critics included. The church makes a great deal of having prophets, seers, and revelators (PSRs) in these last days, but apologists seem to act as if their ideas carry equal weight as those of the PSRs.

I expect, though I cannot be certain, that the PSRs are aware of the ideas being proposed by their senior apologists. The PSRs are not stupid people, and they have authority to speak and act. If they were impressed with apologetic ideas about 2 Cumorahs (or anything else, for that matter), there is absolutely nothing to prevent them from announcing their official support for these ideas.

DCP wrote: Professor Hamblin has just surprised me with something that I hadn't known, and hadn't suspected: "You are senile," he writes from Cordoba, Spain (my emphasis). "I published the letter in 1993. However, I received it while still in graduate school =before 1985."

Just for fun: I'm left wondering which of the points there are connected, and in what way. Here are the statements:

• something that I [Prof P] hadn't known
• [something that I, Prof P] hadn't suspected
• You [Prof P]are senile
• I [Prof H] received it [WL2] while still in graduate school

An ungenerous reading of the above tells us that Prof H was telling Prof P that, although Prof P did not know it, and had not even suspected it, Prof H thought that Prop P might be senile.