2nd Watson Letter just found!'

[_Ray A]

With that in mind, I have to assume that "correspondence" here does not refer to a formal letter.

The other question in my mind is: Did Hamblin have permission to quote Watson?

See his footnote 99 in the JBMS article.

Dated 18 November 1992, quoted with permission.

That was permission obtained to quote Ray Matheny. (Personal correspondence.)

[_Doctor Scratch]

Lol. It seems that the matter is of more concern to The Good Professor than he was at first willing to admit:

Okay, Bill. Serious question. Brent Metcalfe has jumped into the fray, the volume has gone way, way up, and we’re being accused of lying (or something; it varies according to the critic) about the provenance of the 1993 Watson First Presidency letter that you cite in your JBMS article on “Basic Methodological Problems.”

It’s being said that there was no Watson letter, but, rather, a fax from one Carla Ogden in the Office of the First Presidency. I think I saw it, though. I remember a letter, not a fax, and Michael Watson, not Carla Ogden (of whom I’ve never heard, to the best of my recollection).

Am I hallucinating? Misremembering? Lying? What do you recall? Did anybody else see it?

"Jumped into the fray"? What, he's been giving Dr. Hamblin a "play-byplay" on some issue that he doesn't care about in the least?

In any case, Hamblin says--contra his endnote:

It was a letter from Watson. It was not a fax.


William Hamblin
Sent from my iPhone

Then why write "correspondence" in your endnote, Bill?

[_Doctor Scratch]

One other thing:

Which, if (as seems likely) it indicates the use of a standard-language response on this issue by the Office of the First Presidency at that point in 1993, certainly doesn't lessen the force of the letter that Professor Hamblin cited in his excellent JBMS article, but, if anything, strengthens it. And, moreover, the apparent fact that this was a standard-language response seems to render the claim, by some of the more fevered residents of the Compound, that Bill somehow "bullied" the First Presidency into caving in to the FARMS position, rather less plausible.

If Hamblin did not "bully" the FP "into caving in to the FARMS position," then Brent Hall did. The cover letter accompanying the fax indicates that Hall told Watson that they were having problems with "questions from anti-Mormons," and that the text was written in response to that. (Rather promptly, too, it would seem.)

Apart from that, I'm having an awfully hard time following DCP's logic here. The "standard boilerplate" helps to show that there was really an actual, on-letterhead letter? Huh? And it provides more support for the "force" of the text in the fax? Huh? His story seems increasingly fraught with problems.

[_Gadianton]

Here's a question for DCP, since he remembers the letter so vividly, did the letter Hamblin receive from Watson have the bracketed clarification in the middle and the truncation of the last sentence, or did Hamblin make the alterations -- presumably to make the letter more readable? Actually, this is something DCP should ask Hamblin via iPod communications. Hamblin should know the answer to this question. It's very important that these two gents clarify this matter.

[_harmony]

If Hamblin did not "bully" the FP "into caving in to the FARMS position," then Brent Hall did. The cover letter accompanying the fax indicates that Hall told Watson that they were having problems with "questions from anti-Mormons," and that the text was written in response to that. (Rather promptly, too, it would seem.)

This is just bizarre. Some "office manager" at FARMS or even a BYU professor bullying the Brethren? With whining about "questions from anti-Mormons"? Good grief.

Apart from that, I'm having an awfully hard time following DCP's logic here. The "standard boilerplate" helps to show that there was really an actual, on-letterhead letter? Huh? And it provides more support for the "force" of the text in the fax? Huh? His story seems increasingly fraught with problems.

Somehow this all takes on the surreality of the golden plates... witnesses, testimonies, and then in the end... nothing to show. Just "trust me!" again.

Scratch, I think you'll need to revise your 2009 high points of LDS apologetics to include this one.

[_Gadianton]

I had never, until yesterday, even thought of the possibility that Brent might be connected with my Malevolent Stalker, let alone seriously considered it. It hadn't occurred to me. I don't say that he is my Malevolent Stalker (though, of course, I can't rule that out), but they now seem to me linked in some interesting way that I hadn't recognized before. That seems pretty obvious, even beyond reasonable dispute, and I see no reason to withdraw the observation.

I find this fascinating, i hope DCP elaborates on this theory.

[_harmony]

I had never, until yesterday, even thought of the possibility that Brent might be connected with my Malevolent Stalker, let alone seriously considered it. It hadn't occurred to me. I don't say that he is my Malevolent Stalker (though, of course, I can't rule that out), but they now seem to me linked in some interesting way that I hadn't recognized before. That seems pretty obvious, even beyond reasonable dispute, and I see no reason to withdraw the observation.

I find this fascinating, i hope DCP elaborates on this theory.

I'd be very surprised. Very.

[_Nimrod]

Lol. It seems that the matter is of more concern to The Good Professor than he was at first willing to admit:

Okay, Bill. Serious question. Brent Metcalfe has jumped into the fray, the volume has gone way, way up, and we’re being accused of lying (or something; it varies according to the critic) about the provenance of the 1993 Watson First Presidency letter that you cite in your JBMS article on “Basic Methodological Problems.”

It’s being said that there was no Watson letter, but, rather, a fax from one Carla Ogden in the Office of the First Presidency. I think I saw it, though. I remember a letter, not a fax, and Michael Watson, not Carla Ogden (of whom I’ve never heard, to the best of my recollection).

Am I hallucinating? Misremembering? Lying? What do you recall? Did anybody else see it?

"Jumped into the fray"? What, he's been giving Dr. Hamblin a "play-byplay" on some issue that he doesn't care about in the least?

In any case, Hamblin says--contra his endnote:

It was a letter from Watson. It was not a fax.


William Hamblin
Sent from my iPhone

Then why write "correspondence" in your endnote, Bill?

Good observation, Dr. Scratch, that DCP has previously communicated with Hamblin about the discussions of the past week or two, evidence that DCP is feigning his dismissive attitude about the level of importance the Ogden Fax is for DCP and FARMS.

'Correspondence' in the footnote may have given Hamblin a respectable out, particularly if coupled with an explanation that in light of Brent Hill's Cover, Hamblin assumed that the Ogden Fax had been directed by Watson, after Watson's call from Brent Hill ended. But Hamblin himself closed off that possible explanation. When asked by DCP today via iPhone whether the 4/23/1993 correspondence Hamblin quoted in his JBMS article on “Basic Methodological Problems” might have been a fax from one Carla Ogden, Hamblin said "It was a letter from Watson. It was not a fax."

And bolstered by Hamblin's unequivocal answers, DCP also dug the hole that FARMS is in deeper. http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208773502

"I stand by my story.

"It was a letter. Not a fax. From Michael Watson. Not from Carla Ogden."

The die has now been cast. DCP and Hamblin have given themselves no wiggle room, even the wiggle room that appears to be the most reasonable explanation of the entire episode, that the Ogden Fax is what has been represented all these 16 years as the '2nd Watson Letter'.

Now, it waits to be seen if DCP/FARMS will hazard requesting of the Office of the First Presidency either (a) a copy from its files of a letter (not a fax) from Watson (not Ogden) dated 4/23/1993, or barring that such can be found in those files (b) sending out one more of these standard verbiage letters on the issue, a new one to FARMS. Failing that, we're on the cusp of a checkmate of DCP/Hamblin/FARMS.

DCP, riddle me this on your next post in the In need of convincing LDS Scholarship thread on your Rah-Rah Board, why you don't cause FARMS/Maxwell Institute to make the requests of the Office of the First Presidency suggested in the immediately preceding paragraph?

[_Gadianton]

Holy Crap. Brent Metcalfe just leveled the Mopologetic Kingdom. I will let others quote his discovery. For now, I will sit back and quietly contemplate the implications over a glass of Scotch.

[_Nimrod]

Brent Metcalfe has just introduced a game-changer on DCP. (I see Gadianton has beaten me to the punch!)

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208773800

The phraseology of the text quoted by Hamblin in his 1993 article as from the 2nd Watson Letter, and the identical text in the Ogden Fax, apparently originates from Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992), s.v. CUMORAH. Ludlow had mentioned Mesoamerica location for Cumorah as one of the 'other possible explanations or locations' for Cumorah that might be better fits than New York state, before explaining that in LDS doctrine "there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site that has been suggested".

So now the Ogden Fax's origin becomes more questionable. The Office of the First Presidency consults Ludlow to determine and quotes from Ludlow to explain official LDS doctrine? The Office of the First Presidency does this without referencing the source (read: plagiarizes)? And when requested by FARMS--espousers of the Mesoamerica geography--the Office of the First Presidency excludes from its Ludlow quotes mentiom of Mesoamerica?