Thanks Scratch. Several points need to be made. Clearly, raking in a "wad of cash" isn't the same thing as becoming filthy rich. As you suggest, a few hundred dollars or more in smaller denominations qualifies as a "wad". It would be a misrepresentation to use that terminology for tens of thousands which would require a briefcase. Further, Dr. Hamblin was clear that his payment is in line with the pay one receives in other scholarly venues. This really tells it all. Consider this, I have a fulltime job, and I also do consulting work on the side. I would love to make a thousand dollars an hour for side projects, but my skills do not have that kind of market value. What I do for side work pays about the same as what I make at my day job. So while apologetics may not make one rich, niether does a day job as a professor of history, and side work that pays at the same rate that one makes in their other academic pursuits is a pretty smooth gig. Especially when one has the added bonuses of prestiege and doctrinal invention. Certainly more money can be made in finance banking than in contract IT work or apologetics, but neither I nor the apologists have the requisite skillset or likely even interest to pursue that option. We make money at the things we like to do, and can do.
I think if I had to try and fit in missing letters and the like it would have to be about where those arrows are with the "plausible deniability" at the bottom of the slide. Anywhere on the slide noting "plausible deniability" I think leaves ample room for things falling through the cracks, convenient bureaucratic gridlock, and questions about who takes ownership of what. The letter you brought up is a great example and deserves serious consideration. It doesn't matter if the apologists deny their ability to influence doctrine, the very fact that they are in a position to even make the claim, true or not, that a second letter was written to them, and have credibility behind that claim has put an important LDS teaching on indefinite hold. That right there my friend, is sheer power.
But there is more to say on this matter. Other questions are raised, such as, why can't Dr. Hamblin simply request another copy? Or get another letter from another church official? I'm here to tell you right now, that it's possible the letter instructed Dr. Hamblin to either destroy it or to not show it around. Now that doesn't mean Dr. Hamblin is lying, because it's possible that he really did legitimately lose it. And if the letter requested confidence, then there would be little point in taking great care to preserve it.
The result? See the oval at the bottom, "doctrinal compromise". The upshot on this is the church can have it both ways. Those members who are Internet Mormons will believe Dr. Hamblin received the letter and doctrine has been clarified in their favor. Chapel Mormons are free to disbelieve Dr. Hamblin, or perhaps question the details of the contents, such that they are free to believe it is in fact church doctrine that the hill Cumorah is in NY. Everybody wins. Now, when you look at it this way, there is another angle to read the brethren's, "Do not bother us with questions" stance. This is not just a check on members, but a warning to the brethren themselves. As the Spacing Guild's navigator warned the emperor in the Dune photo I adapted in the other thread, the apologetic spokespersons of power have essentially warned the brethren, and they've taken that warning very seriously. Essentially, that instruction to members from the FP letter was a gag order on the general authorities themselves..
Defining doctrine will increasingly become a shared power that will maximize coverage in the Church's PR aims.