To What Extent Do Apologists Influence Doctrine?

[_Mister Scratch]

I'm perfectly happy if and to the extent that LDS scholarship is leading us to be more careful and precise in our claims and in distinguishing between what we know and what we don't know.

Yes, but this is essentially admitting that apologists, or LDS scholars, are now doing the work which has traditionally been performed by the Brethren. It suggests that administering to the Church has gotten to unwieldy that the Brethren have decided to let apologists and scholars take care of things.

But there is no basis to any suppositon that Bill Hamblin somehow compelled Michael Watson to retract the statement in his first letter, or that the Maxwell Institute has some sort of leverage over the First Presidency.

Yes there is. You yourself stated that Hamblin likely mailed a letter to Watson in order to demand the retraction in the 2nd Letter. Oddly, as many here have pointed out, there is no extant copy of Watson's 2nd Letter, nor is there---for that matter---a copy of Hamblin's original letter, which I, for one, would be most interested in seeing. Just what did Prof. Hamblin say that got the Secretary to the First Presidency to do a complete about-face??? It really is incredible that one non-GA man could have such power in terms of determining doctrine.

[_Dr. Shades]

I suspect this was not his first inquiry into the topic being directed to the first presidency and the response directed to the bishop was the attempt of Bro. Watson to end the questions.

Then why not send it directly to Brother Sparks and end the questions that much sooner?

[_Mister Scratch]

I suspect this was not his first inquiry into the topic being directed to the first presidency and the response directed to the bishop was the attempt of Bro. Watson to end the questions.

Then why not send it directly to Brother Sparks and end the questions that much sooner?

What I suspect happened is that Sparks asked his bishop to send the letter for him. The rank-and-file have been instructed to not contact the General Authorities. And yet, many times, members have reasons to write to them, whether it be to request a blessing, or a clarification on doctrine. Possibly, Bro. Sparks had written a number of times and finally decided to have his Bishop send the letter along, since the GAs would be far more likely to listen to someone like a bishop, or a BYU professor and high-ranking Mopologist.

[_beastie]

I'm perfectly happy if and to the extent that LDS scholarship is leading us to be more careful and precise in our claims and in distinguishing between what we know and what we don't know.

Yeah, cuz everyone should know, by now, that revelation doesn't work.

[_TAK]

I suspect this was not his first inquiry into the topic being directed to the first presidency and the response directed to the bishop was the attempt of Bro. Watson to end the questions.

Then why not send it directly to Brother Sparks and end the questions that much sooner?

?? except maybe Bro Sparks will take the direct reply as an invite to discuss further with the bretheren.

Beyond that, I wonder what his reaction was the so-called second letter...assuming of course he even knows there was a second letter..

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I suspect this was not his first inquiry into the topic being directed to the first presidency and the response directed to the bishop was the attempt of Bro. Watson to end the questions.

Then why not send it directly to Brother Sparks and end the questions that much sooner?

This is Church policy -- any response is sent to the member's local ecclesiastical leader. Moreover, usually the local leader only reads the letter to the member, and does not give the member a copy (apparently this was not followed in the Ronnie Sparks case), allowing for plausible denial should the need ever arise.

[_Dr. Shades]

This is Church policy -- any response is sent to the member's local ecclesiastical leader. Moreover, usually the local leader only reads the letter to the member, and does not give the member a copy (apparently this was not followed in the Ronnie Sparks case), allowing for plausible denial should the need ever arise.

FAIR enough. But in that case, why was Bill Hamblin an exception twice over--A) the 2nd Watson letter went straight to him, and B) Hamblin got to keep the hard copy?

Something's not adding up.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

This is Church policy -- any response is sent to the member's local ecclesiastical leader. Moreover, usually the local leader only reads the letter to the member, and does not give the member a copy (apparently this was not followed in the Ronnie Sparks case), allowing for plausible denial should the need ever arise.

FAIR enough. But in that case, why was Bill Hamblin an exception twice over--A) the 2nd Watson letter went straight to him, and B) Hamblin got to keep the hard copy?

Something's not adding up.

Because Hamblin has 'connections' we regular folk do not.

[_Dr. Shades]

Because Hamblin has 'connections' we regular folk do not.

In that case, perhaps his "connections" are also strong enough that he can influence the direction of doctrine, as we see with the stark difference between Watson's letter to him vs. Watson's letter to Sparks.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Actually, it's only once over. Since the letter was sent to Bill, he kept it, just as, presumably, the bishop to whom the other letter was sent kept it.

So far as I'm aware, Bill has no particular ties with General Authorities, either collectively or individually. I do, but he doesn't. And he's told me many times that he wants none. To be known in Salt Lake City, he says, is to be in danger of callings, etc.