Skinny-L Members Ridicule T. Kimball, C. Hitchens

[_Trevor]

I don't know for sure that the two quotations are authentic. With all of the thousands of posts that have gone back and forth on Skinny-L over the years, there's simply no way that I can remember all of them. I don't even always read all of them.

But I assume that they're authentic, because I have no reason not to do so. Despite my admittedly very low opinion of Scratch (and my confidence that his obsessive personal hostility toward me may stem from my having caught him, as I believe, in a rather brazen lie some years ago), I don't believe that he actually forges the evidence that he uses against me. He simply carefully selects, spins, tortures, abuses, and misrepresents it.

Assuming the authenticity of a document or a report unless one has solid reasons to question its authenticity is the reasonable thing to do, and is the default setting for normal civil conversation.

Ah, OK. Maybe beastie was operating under the same premise when she believed the Arnold Friend contribution.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Ah, OK. Maybe beastie was operating under the same premise when she believed the Arnold Friend contribution.

Oh, I don't really blame her, particularly.

But, of course, the odds of a newbie showing up here who just happened to remember the arrival at Church headquarters of a fairly routine letter from fifteen years ago -- and its exact wording -- seem, umm, fairly low.

And anybody who knows Bill Hamblin even slightly would instantly recognize that "Arnold Friend's" letter is transparently bogus.

[_beastie]

I actually thought that you (DCP) had contacted someone who could verify the letter. I did not believe someone suddenly showed up out of the blue.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I actually thought that you (DCP) had contacted someone who could verify the letter. I did not believe someone suddenly showed up out of the blue.

Ah. Well, I hadn't.

[_beastie]

Yes, in retrospect, it's obvious that you didn't. However, at that moment, it seemed to me that you would really like additional verification from a source if at all possible, and it didn't seem inconceivable that, amongst your fellow apologists, you did know of a situation wherein someone had copied the letter and had it for verification.

What really should have tipped me off was the language used. I doubt a real life letter would have been quite so dramatic.

The truth is that I just didn't apply critical thinking skills to the situation. It happens to all of us. At least the price of this "oops" was only a laugh and a bit of embarrassment (versus, say, the 15 years of horrendous marriage I suffered due to similar gullibility).

[_Trevor]

Oh, I don't really blame her, particularly.

But, of course, the odds of a newbie showing up here who just happened to remember the arrival at Church headquarters of a fairly routine letter from fifteen years ago -- and its exact wording -- seem, umm, fairly low.

And anybody who knows Bill Hamblin even slightly would instantly recognize that "Arnold Friend's" letter is transparently bogus.

Well, for those of us who occasionally wander through the Recovery Board, there are those who claim that they have worked in the COB. Given that kind of background, it is not inconceivable that someone from Church headquarters would pop by here, particularly if you had asked them to do so to quell speculation.

I thought the tone was suspicious, so I simply told a joke.

[_Mister Scratch]

Oh, I don't really blame her, particularly.

But, of course, the odds of a newbie showing up here who just happened to remember the arrival at Church headquarters of a fairly routine letter from fifteen years ago -- and its exact wording -- seem, umm, fairly low.

And anybody who knows Bill Hamblin even slightly would instantly recognize that "Arnold Friend's" letter is transparently bogus.

Well, for those of us who occasionally wander through the Recovery Board, there are those who claim that they have worked in the COB. Given that kind of background, it is not inconceivable that someone from Church headquarters would pop by here, particularly if you had asked them to do so to quell speculation.

I thought the tone was suspicious, so I simply told a joke.

Here is a question for you: What, if anything, in the content of the Arnold Friend letter might DCP have found objectionable?

[_beastie]

Dear Brother Watson:

We face a grave threat from the anti-Mormons. Although you surely did not intend it, your letter attempting to clarify the location of the Hill Cumorah has fallen into the hands of the Tanners. We cannot have this. Perhaps you are not aware, but the good Brothers and Sisters at FARMS have been very busy trying to locate the real Hill Cumorah in the Chiapas region of Mexico. By telling people that the Brethren officially believe Cumorah to be located in New York, we risk losing the faith of thousands of Latter-day Saints, since it appears that the best LDS scholars and the Brethren are not on the same page. While it is possible that the Hill is indeed in New York, at the present time the bulk of evidence points to a Latin American locale.

I urge you to issue a retraction letter as soon as possible, before it can appear that apologists and the Brethren are not united in their doctrinal understanding. I am sure you are sensitive to the gravity of this situation, and that you will act as promptly and hastily as possible.

Your Brother-in-arms,

William Hamblin, Ph.D.

In retrospect, I think the portions I bolded sound overstated. It's kind of Mark Hofmannesque - he provided what people have good reason to suspect would be in the letter, but it was too much of a dream come true for critics.

Apologists normally downplay points that critics may be making, and act as if the critics are silly, stupid, and aren't really "scoring any points", so to speak. This letter too openly admits that critics are scoring points and posing a real threat. I also don't think an apologist would think, or admit, that "thousands" of LDS could lose faith over it. I think they try to minimize the impact of all this.

Plus, he doesn't make fun of "anti's", which is suspicious. ;)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Here is a question for you: What, if anything, in the content of the Arnold Friend letter might DCP have found objectionable?

It rang false at every point. It wasn't Bill Hamblin's style, didn't evince his personality, tried to portray him as feeling beleaguered and slightly desperate (which, in my more than quarter-century-long experience with him, I have never encountered), depicted him as pushing the secretary to the First Presidency in a way he simply would not have done . . . and so forth.

And no, I'm not going to discuss each of these items with you in detail. Find some other avenue of attack. Something fresh.

[_Mister Scratch]

Here is a question for you: What, if anything, in the content of the Arnold Friend letter might DCP have found objectionable?

It rang false at every point. It wasn't Bill Hamblin's style, didn't evince his personality, tried to portray him as feeling beleaguered and slightly desperate (which, in my more than quarter-century-long experience with him, I have never encountered), depicted him as pushing the secretary to the First Presidency in a way he simply would not have done . . . and so forth.

I did not ask about style or tone. I asked about content. Think about this for a moment. These are the facts of this matter:

1. Michael Watson mailed a letter to Bishop Brooks in 1990 in which he reiterated a doctrinal point which most of us are quite familiar with.
2. This letter wound up in the hands of the Tanners, who published it.
3. In 1993 Bill Hamblin wrote his letter to Watson, who issued another letter which may or may not be interpreted as being a retraction of the 1st, 1990 letter.

You'll notice that three years had passed since Watson wrote the first letter. What, I have to wonder, would Bill Hamblin's letter have said? "I know it's been a while, but do you remember that letter you wrote to Bishop Brooks back in 1990? Well, you were wrong about Church doctrine. You should read FROB issues such-and-such."

Is that what it said? Perhaps. I think we can safely assume that Hamblin's letter included the following things:
1. Mention that the "one Cumorah" doctrine is false/incorrect/not in-line with "present understanding", etc.
2. A request that Watson issue a retraction.

Would you say that's correct, Professor P.? Bill Hamblin's letter contained these two items, did it not?