F. Michael Watson Personally clarifies Hill Cumorah Letter

[Philo Sofee]

Because from my POV, someone was lying through their teeth.

- Doc

You must remember, they were tasked with the Heavenly charge of "No more slam dunks" but without clear guidelines for personal fouls, goaltending, or information fabrication. They were forced into a make-it-up-as-you-go-along position as the designated defenders of the Church. Besides, Richard Nygren told them to do it.

[drumdude]

It’s a good thing none of this weighs very heavily on DCP. When you think you’ve got God on your side, anything is permissible.

[Kishkumen]

Now (cue drum roll), 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."

Man, this is really, really odd. I have no idea why Hamblin said such a thing. In his 1993 article, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," (see https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... ntext=jbms), he cites an April 23, 1993 letter of Michael Watson on page 181, footnote 70:

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

Was he then claiming that his 1993 citation was in error? How he received this letter from Michael Watson on behalf of the Office of the First Presidency before 1985 is truly mysterious, since Watson became the secretary to the OFP in April of 1986.

Of course, the text and date belong to the fax Carla Ogden sent to Brent Hall at FARMS.

If there is some other place that Hamblin published a pre-1985 letter from Michael Watson in 1993, I would be happy to read that publication.

[Gadianton]

When you think you’ve got God on your side, anything is permissible.

So true. The ends will always justify the means if you believe that your organization represents God. If your organization is the only official connection between God and humans, then nothing is more important than protecting the organization. No matter what the organization does that is wrong, it would be much worse for the world with the only connection to God severed, and so the worse the organization behaves, the greater its risk of failing, and more blind devotion required to sustain it.

I wonder how many times a day the brethren use this logic with themselves and each other?

What a bunch of losers.

[malkie]

Now (cue drum roll), 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."

Man, this is really, really odd. I have no idea why Hamblin said such a thing. In his 1993 article, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," (see https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... ntext=jbms), he cites an April 23, 1993 letter of Michael Watson on page 181, footnote 70:

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

Was he then claiming that his 1993 citation was in error? How he received this letter from Michael Watson on behalf of the Office of the First Presidency before 1985 is truly mysterious, since Watson became the secretary to the OFP in April of 1986.

Of course, the text and date belong to the fax Carla Ogden sent to Brent Hall at FARMS.

If there is some other place that Hamblin published a pre-1985 letter from Michael Watson in 1993, I would be happy to read that publication.

I'm lost!

In 1985, Hamblin received a letter from Watson that was the result of a request for Watson to clarify the statement he (Watson) made in 1990?

Even if the 1985 letter was nothing to do with clarification of a later statement, surely Watson's 1990 statement would effectively refute his 1985 statement.

Also, knowing that "antis" were making a big deal of the 1990 letter, why would Hamblin wait till 1993 to quote a letter he had had in his possession for 5 years?

Clearly I'm missing something here.

[Kishkumen]

I'm lost!

In 1985, Hamblin received a letter from Watson that was the result of a request for Watson to clarify the statement he (Watson) made in 1990?

Even if the 1985 letter was nothing to do with clarification of a later statement, surely Watson's 1990 statement would effectively refute his 1985 statement.

Also, knowing that "antis" were making a big deal of the 1990 letter, why would Hamblin wait till 1993 to quote a letter he had had in his possession for 5 years?

Clearly I'm missing something here.

It turns out that Watson was assistant secretary to the OFP when Hamblin was in grad school, so I suppose it is possible he had such a letter in his possession. I still have no idea where he published this letter in 1993, if he did. It seems more likely to me that he is referring to the Carla Ogden fax of 23 April 1993, which he mis-cites as "correspondence" from Michael Watson of 23 April 1993. The text of the fax matches the content of the quotation in the article cited as this correspondence.

Who knows what all of this monkey business is about? I think it is mostly about trolling and distracting. Simply put, we have one letter from Watson in 1990 and a fax from Carla Ogden in 1993. We have Watson's own views of the matter, and they are very clear.

[Marcus]

So Hamblin states the fax was really a letter from Watson, and Brent's cover letter really embellishes on that.

And then we have Watson himself stating that Hamblin's and Brent's statements about the fax are simply not true.

So, which witness do we believe?

[drumdude]

DCP said he held it in his hand. But he did not say that the fax was it.

[Kishkumen]

In my view, the best way to go is stick with Watson’s 1990 letter and subsequent interview on the matter as authoritative. As far as the official view of the OFP is concerned, until further illumination of the subject by the OFP, there is one Cumorah in upstate New York. Any other Cumorah that is manufactured to fit a perceived need to make a theory about Book of Mormon geography work needs to be viewed as a methodological shortcoming in the theory. You can hypothesize such things, but that doesn’t mean they exist. The traditional Cumorah is Cumorah.

[Nimrod]

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.