Gadianton has made two spot-on observations this evening.
Also, I expect that Brent Metcalfe will soon deliver the final death blow in Bill Hamblin's integrity as a scholar--repeated references by Hamblin since the publication of his 1993 article that he, Hamblin, received a 4/23/1993 letter from Watson. But it should not be forgotten that it was just this past Saturday when asked by his friend DCP about the
1993 Watson letter and if could have been a fax and from Carla Ogden, Hamblin said it was a letter, not a fax and it was from Watson, not Ogden. That's unequivocal, and according to DCP, Hamblin has just 5 days later impeached himself on that.
Until Brent does so, here's what I can add:
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208761703 wherein DCP stated about three weeks ago (emphasis added by Nimrod):
Here are the facts: Bill Hamblin wrote to the First Presidency for clarification of the earlier letter. I didn't see his request for clarification, but I gather that he suggested some of the reasons why many of us think the question of the location of the final battles remains open, or, even, should probably be answered with "Mesoamerica." I did, however, see Brother Watson's response, on First Presidency letterhead, and I am the editor of the FARMS Review, in which the entire text of that response (apart from the greeting and the signature) was published. My two associate editors of the FARMS Review, George Mitton and Prof. Louis Midgley, also saw it, as did the Review's production editor, Dr. Shirley Ricks, and the Maxwell Institute's director of publications, Alison V. P. Coutts, and at least one source checker.
I will call this the Review quote.
And then earlier this evening (
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208775896)
As to why the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies apparently gives the date of the Carla Ogden fax as the date of the letter from Michael Watson, I could not begin to say. I am not, and have never been, the editor of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.
This I will call the Journal quote.
Hamblin's 1993 article was published in the Journal, not the Review. So what was DCP saying three weeks ago in the Review quote?
A quick search turned up an article published in the Review (the publication of which DCP is the editor) in 2004, authored by no other than Matthew Roper. It is entitled:
Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... m=2&id=555. Roper wrote:
"The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography," agreed Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in a 1993 statement:
While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.107
and footnote 107:
107. Correspondence from Michael Watson, 23 April 1993, as cited in William J. Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (1993): 181.
So DCP is correct today when he says in the Journal quote that "As to why the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies apparently gives the date of the Carla Ogden fax as the date of the letter from Michael Watson, I could not begin to say. I am not, and have never been, the editor of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies."
DCP was also correct when he said three weeks that the Review too had published the text of the entire Watson response. It was in the 2004 Roper article in the Review. Now, DCP did not explain three weeks ago that the Review editorial staff and fact checker simply verified (back in 2004) as Roper wrote in footnote 107 that the passage being quoted appeared in Hamblin's 1993 Journal article. The editorial verification went further. In giving us the "facts", DCP made clear that as the Review editor, he did see "Brother Watson's response, on First Presidency letterhead". But it just wasn't DCP that missed the pre-1985 date that Hamblin now claims for the quoted Watson letter. It was no less than 5 other Review editors and fact checkers that missed this same fact. When giving us those "facts" three weeks ago, he explained that
My two associate editors of the FARMS Review, George Mitton and Prof. Louis Midgley, also saw it, as did the Review's production editor, Dr. Shirley Ricks, and the Maxwell Institute's director of publications, Alison V. P. Coutts, and at least one source checker.
In addition to these 5, DCP brings the total to 6 at the Review that saw the letter but missed the fact that Roper's article put the date on the Watson letter from which the quote is drawn as 4/23/1993 rather than what both DCP and Hamblin today claim was pre-1985.
Either DCP and 5 others each missed that date discrepancy in his or her review in 2004 (no memory fade excuse for this), or Hamblin (with DCP in supportive tow once again) is fabricating this pre-1985 date for the Watson letter after now at least 5 days of contemplating, stewing and reconstructing his memory about it while in Europe. Either way, this is quite disconcerting for FARMS that would like to pass itself off as both scholarly and credible.
I cannot wait for Scott Lloyd and Calmoriah to start the spinning of this. Maybe there were gremlins in the FARMS offices that in 2004 that magically changed the date on the Watson letter from pre-1985 to 4/23/1993 just before DCP and the five reviewed it--and so once again, we will have a reasonable explanation, a likely one, a probable one, etc. to self-delusion. (oops, sorry again, Dr. Shades and moderators, sorry for this slip into the MADHouse spinning mode again.)