2nd Watson Letter just found!'

[_Nimrod]

Interesting, Ray A.

So now another coincidence for Calmoriah to isolate from the others and then dismiss.

Twice the same "that has been suggested" at the end of the Ogden Fax is left out. First by Hamblin when quoting in 1993 from the Ogden Fax, and now again by the author of the FAIRwiki pop text.

Lest we be accused of conspiracy theory mongering, I want to temper this just a bit. To leave out "that has been suggested" means leaving out the last line of the Ogden Fax text, the only such line of text that is not underlined.

That the last line of text was also overlooked by the FAIRwiki editor that created the pop text suggests that Hamblin too simply overlooked that line of text as he was taking the quote in 1993 from the Ogden Fax.

[_Ray A]

That the last line of text was also overlooked by the FAIRwiki editor that created the pop text suggests that Hamblin too simply overlooked that line of text as he was taking the quote in 1993 from the Ogden Fax.

I think it certainly could imply that Hamblin was quoting from the Ogden fax.

[Guest]

Nimrod, I'd like to thank you for the time and care you've put into bringing us the news on this matter.

Cal is wrong, flat out. Sure, two government officials can send the same canned response on the same day, it happens all the time. But it doesn't happen that two government officials send the same canned response to two separate and distinct queries on the same day, and never on any other days. This isn't really a canned response since no one but Hall and presumably Hamblin have ever received it.

It strains credibility that Hall put in a call and talked to Watson and around the same day, a letter arrives from Bill Hamblin, the two not being aware of each other's efforts. On April 23, and April 23 only never again on a day prior or subsequent does the OFP issue this statement, Watson requests Ogden to send a specific, poorly worded fax to Hall. Hall receives the fax and distributes copies. Then, Watson himself on the same day sits down, and on official first presidency stationary composes a letter to Bill Hamblin using the exact words Ogden uses except adds in a parenthetical clarification where wording is poor and cuts off a running sentence, and completes by signing his name. Several of the FARMS faculty also view this letter, supposedly.

Then, as CKS points out, the more official letter to FARMS is printed in its entirety sans the greetings and the signature, as missing in the Ogden fax. While several copies of the informal fax are made, not a single copy of the official letter is made -- as Nimrod has pointed out. And finally, the official letter is lost forever, the receiver of it absolutely certain that it could never be found again. Interestingly, neither Hamblin or Peterson had ever heard about the Ogden letter -- just about everyone at FARMS got a copy of the Ogden letter except DCP and Hamblin (though it is claimed Hamblin was sent a copy), and just about everyone at FARMS saw Hamblin's letter. And at no time did anyone mention Ogden's fax in a conversation to either Hamblin or DCP like, "oh cool, you got an official letter version of the fax we've been passing around."

To me, far more likely is that there was some kind of communication with Watson or his office from Hall. Hall was sent an informal statement reflecting no one's authority in particular. The fax was circulated. How the next part in the story is open to speculation, but one thing that is beyond debate I think is that the text from the Journal is an edit of the text from Ogden's fax. Ogden's fax was circulated as -- per the lens the apologists were looking at the world through -- a clarification from Watson overturning his previous statement in favor of the apologists. It was printed in the Journal reflecting the intents the apologists read into it, but worded otherwise exactly as received save minor redaction for clarity.

[_beastie]

Lest we be accused of conspiracy theory mongering, I want to temper this just a bit. To leave out "that has been suggested" means leaving out the last line of the Ogden Fax text, the only such line of text that is not underlined.

Actually, the last two lines are not underlined.

by the way, does Hamblin's article mention the FIRST Watson letter, or only the 2nd?

[_Nimrod]

I agree, Gadianton. I appreciate also your thanks for my efforts.

I suppose (and this is a supposition) that because Brent Hill reported in his cover having spoken with Watson and that then the Ogden Fax arrived, Hamblin and the other FARMerS assumed the Ogden Fax was sent at the direction of Watson. It may have been. To Hamblin's credit, he did not add anything to what he quoted and attributed to having come from Watson. There is no text recreation in the indented quotation of Hamblin's article of letterhead, addressing information, dating, signature block or purported signature (e.g. "/s/"). Usually these items are included in a block quote in a scholarly piece when the entirety of the text of a correspondence is being quoted. But Hamblin did not do that.

What Hamblin did was leave out of his block quote the part that the Ogden Fax came from Ms. Carla Ogden, and that there is no mention of Watson on the face of the Ogden Fax (Hamblin's source). Hamblin did not mention that his source (the Ogden Fax) did not have a signature, not even of Ms. Carla Ogden.

In fact, there is nothing from the face of the Ogden Fax that suggests that Watson reviewed it for accuracy before it was faxed to FARMS. There is nothing suggesting why a doctrinal clarification of a previously issued doctrinal letter (the 1st Watson Letter) was in order, or why Watson would leave a doctrinal clarification in the hands of a relatively unknown staffer (Ms. Ogden) without Watson at least initialing it to signify that he read and approved of the text before it was faxed out.

[_Doctor Scratch]

It strains credibility that Hall put in a call and talked to Watson and around the same day, a letter arrives from Bill Hamblin, the two not being aware of each other's efforts. On April 23, and April 23 only never again on a day prior or subsequent does the OFP issue this statement, Watson requests Ogden to send a specific, poorly worded fax to Hall. Hall receives the fax and distributes copies. Then, Watson himself on the same day sits down, and on official first presidency stationary composes a letter to Bill Hamblin using the exact words Ogden uses except adds in a parenthetical clarification where wording is poor and cuts off a running sentence, and completes by signing his name. Several of the FARMS faculty also view this letter, supposedly.

Yeah, you're right. We're constantly being reminded about how busy the Brethren are, how they don't want to be bothered with mail from members, and so on. And the scenario you've sketched out above---which the apologists want us to swallow---is awfully shaky. If the same information was going out on the exact same day, to the same organization, why would the Office of the First Presidency waste this much time and effort to send out two separate messages? Why not just the one, "official" version for Bill Hamblin?

In any event, I hope that Brent Metcalfe returns to explain. Obviously, he was given a copy of the Ogden Fax some time ago. There is also the mystery surrounding what Bill Hamblin supposedly said to Watson to get him to issue the 2nd Letter. We now know that Hall had spoken with Watson on the phone prior to the fax, but, again, this raises the question: Why, if Michael Watson had been contacted by both Hall and Hamblin on roughly the same day, would he bother sending out (or ordering to be sent out) two separate versions of the same boilerplate? Really, it just doesn't make any sense---even in the context of some messy bureaucracy, as Cal suggests.

[_Ray A]

What Hamblin did was leave out of his block quote

I see now that I've been reading a different copy.

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=39

That is in the transcripts archive. (No indentation or quotations.)

[_Doctor Scratch]

What Hamblin did was leave out of his block quote

I see now that I've been reading a different copy.

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=39

That is in the transcripts archive.

I just realized something else that's very odd. It needs to be pointed out that Hamblin's endnote doesn't say "A personal letter from Michael Watson." It says:

Correspondence from Michael Watson, Office of the First Presidency, 23 April 1993.

(emphasis added)

If he used the fax, it does not mean that he "lied" in the article, per se. He could have reasoned that: (A) Hall contacted Watson by phone, and that (B) Watson had Carla Ogden fire off the fax, and thus that (C) the fax was "from" Michael Watson. Of course, the apologists have been telling us for years that the source of the text was a *letter* from Michael Watson, so it seems to me that Hamblin's footnote is a real problem.

It's interesting, too, that the footnote doesn't say that a copy of the letter is in Hamblin's possession, as is usually the case in this sort of documentation. (You'll notice, for example, that Mike Quinn often notes that key letters are in his possession.) I don't have a copy of the Chicago Manual of Style on hand, but someone who does can double-check to see the standard for citing personal correspondence such as letters. Personally, I'm a lot more familiar with both MLA and APA standards for citing sources; MLA is more specific whereas APA allows for a simple "personal correspondence". If Hamblin had an actual letter, on FP letterhead, with Watson's signature on it, then why didn't he cite it that way? "Correspondence" could be a memo, or a fax, or a casual note, or who knows what else? I am almost positive that Chicago demands a more thorough accounting for the type of source that was used. If Hamblin wrote "correspondence," and he was telling the truth, then I think we have to assume that he was relying on the fax.

Finally, something else that may help put this in perspective: the apologists may have been under quite a bit of stress during this time. It was not more than a few months after Hamblin published the text of the fax/"letter" that he included his "Metcalfe is Butthead" acrostic in his FROB article. So, at the very least, we know they were up to other kinds of mischief around this time.

[_Ray A]

I just realized something else that's very odd.

I don't have access to an original print copy anymore, which could clear up a few things. But if the original did not have indentation, quotations, and was rather vague ("correspondence" etc.), that would suggest to me it was a rather informal or indirect notification.

(Time is slowly running out and I'll soon have to shelve my fine-tooth comb for the day. Work calls.)

[_Doctor Scratch]

I just realized something else that's very odd.

I don't have access to an original print copy anymore, which could clear up a few things. But if the original did not have indentation, quotations, and was rather vague ("correspondence" etc.), that would suggest to me it was a rather informal or indirect notification.

(Time is slowly running and I'll soon have to shelve my fine tooth comb for the day. Work calls.)

Because of problems with Nibley's footnotes, and because of their (i.e., FARMS's) own penchant for poring intensely over critics' foot- and endnotes, my sense is that Hamblin and others would be doubly cautious about citing sources as accurately and thoroughly as humanly possible. With that in mind, I have to assume that "correspondence" here does not refer to a formal letter.