Dr. Shades wrote:Nimrod wrote:. . . I think there was a bit more spoon-feeding by Hall to Watson that your description here might suggest. The reasons are (a) the Ogden Fax mixes up the order of the phrases vis-a-vis the way they appear in EoM, and (b) the Ogden Fax omits from the EoM passage the example of Mesoamerica as one of the specific geography theories for Cumorah which are not, according Palmer (the author of that EoM entry), LDS doctrine (i.e., according to Palmer, no specific Cumorah geography is LDS doctrine).
Are you referring to the phrase which says that the Book of Mormon doesn't match any setting of the Book of Mormon that has been proposed? If so, then
Hamblin was the one who omitted it, not Ogden.
Glad you asked. The 'Cumorah' entry of EoM written by David A. Palmer concludes with these sentences. The underlined part is what I was referencing; the bolded and italicized at the end is what I think you may be referring to:
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.
The Ogden Fax (a.k.a. 2nd Watson Letter) includes many of these phrases, but in different order than as they appear in the EoM, and the Ogden Fax excludes the "including Mesoamerica" as another possible explanation and location for which some LDS have looked. Why would the Ogden Fax not have the "including Mesoamerica" part?
It seems just a bit too convenient that the Ogden Fax
to FARMS left out mention of their pet Mesoamerica theory as one site speculated for Cumorah by some LDS. My theory is that Brent Hall/FARMS drafted the language FARMS wanted to come back to them, back from the Office of the First Presidency. The words "including Mesoamerica" were left out by FARMS as their exclusion better fit FARMS' purposes in wanting a 'clarifying' letter anyway. Why would FARMS want attention drawn to their Mesoamerica theory when the next sentence then dismisses geographical speculation as non-doctrinal? Ergo, "including Mesoamerica" gets left out of the verbiage that FARMS proposes to Watson, to whom it has also been explained that EoM says there's no doctrinal position on the specific geography and thus why Watson is willing to direct Ogden to write and sent the Ogden Fax back to FARMS with this language that FARMS so kindly gleaned out of EoM for him (Watson).
The bolded, intalicized phrase from the EoM entry was in the Ogden Fax to Brent Hall, but not included in Hamblin's quotation of the 2nd Watson Letter (i.e., the Ogden Fax) in his
Journal of Book of Mormon Studies article. That too spruced up the verbiage that originated in EoM to even better fit Hamblin's/FARMS' purposes. Not only does the Ogden Fax, as so quoted without that phrase, not mention the Mesoamerica, but it also doesn't limit the non-doctrinal aspect of the Cumorah geography to just those already suggested as of that writing--but dispels even future suggestions of a specific site--assuring doctrinal vagueness sufficient to give FARMS latitude to scurry towards whatever geographic site further scientific research might at various points in the future make attractive.
Dr. Shades wrote:8. Bill Hamblin incorporates this information into his Journal of Book of Mormon Studies article.
Nimrod wrote:For the reasons that DCP and Hamblin have been in the last week insistent that the source of Hamblin's quote was a letter, not a fax, and from Watson, not Ogden, when coupled with the high improbability of there being such a 2nd Watson Letter given what has been revealed this month, there are yet problems (at best for FARMS, yet a scholarly mystery) surrounding this point of your chronology that go unexplained.
Like what? I'm proposing that Hamblin incorporated the fax from Ogden into his article which he labeled a "communication" from Watson. If you agree with me that there isn't a 2nd Watson Letter, then what do you propose Hamblin did?
I'm not trying to challenge you here, I'm just trying to learn what you're proposing so I can modify my opinion if necessary.
I agree Ogden Fax = 2nd Watson Letter. But I do not think Hamblin's vague "communication" gives Hamblin scholarly integrity, encompassing a fax. When asked by DCP if Hamblin was referring in his article to a fax, this past weekend, Hamblin said no, it was a letter. When asked by DCP if Hamblin was referring to something from Carla Ogden, Hamblin said no, it was from Watson. DCP has declared such as well in the face of the Ogden Fax coming to light. I agree with beastie's theories on memory degradation, but I would find it particularly strange that two individuals have their memories degrade to the same wrong information--unless the two of them have talked about it so often that their memory degradation has been directed by each other, in the 'echo chamber' of their conversing about this repeatedly.
I think Hamblin has wanted the readership of his article to think that the Ogden Fax, as quoted by him, was from Watson. After all, it you are trying to thwart the 1st Watson Letter (one actually from and signed by Watson on Office of First Presidency letterhead), you want something of equal or higher validity. Not lesser validity like the unsigned Ogden Fax. So his vagueness in referring to it as a 'communication' is a deliberate deception, hoping the reader would not dig deeper.
After his article was published, Hamblin was challenged by those wanting to see the 2nd Watson Letter of which he quoted. At that point, there was insufficient time having passed to give Hamblin an out based on memory fade. Nevertheless, to bolster his credibility and that of the point he was making in the article, the "explanation" became that the 2nd Watson Letter was lost and thus couldn't be provided. DCP chimed in to Hamblin's defense when claims of convenient loss were leveled at Hamblin. DCP too, with his own eyes, saw a 2nd Watson Letter--a letter, mind you, not a fax, and from Watson, no one else.
However, Matt Roper of FARMS mentioned to Dr. Greg Smith on 12/2/2009 that among Sorenson's files, "the fax about Cumorah" had been found and asked if Dr. Smith wanted that sent to him. Dr. Smith immediately thought (and posted at the MADHouse) that this was the 2nd Watson Letter that Roper was referring to simply as "the fax about Cumorah". This suggests that earlier discussions between Roper and Dr. Smith, those before the Ogden Fax was discovered among Sorenson's files, were to the effect that the 2nd Watson Letter was indeed a fax, not a letter as Hamblin and DCP now insist. It also suggests that their course of conversation was such that Roper thought Dr. Smith would know what Roper was referring to, with no further description than simply "the fax about Cumorah". Note, Roper said "the fax", not "a fax". (Roper's words were quoted in another post to the MADHouse by Dr. Smith, and so this is not Dr. Smith's version of what Roper said.)
Despite prior conversations between Roper and Dr. Smith to this degree about the 2nd Watson Letter, after the Ogden Fax surfaces on the FAIRwiki, DCP and then DCP and Hamblin dig their heels in and insist that the Ogden Fax is not what Hamblin quoted from in his article.
There is much yet to be accounted for in this 2nd Watson Letter scenario.