To What Extent Do Apologists Influence Doctrine?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't understand why there is such ferocious, unbending resistance on DCP's part to just ask Hamblin to get the letter. I honestly don't get it.

LOL. "Ferocious"???

But it's your issue. Ask Professor Hamblin yourself, or ask Michael Watson.

I actually have very little to do with this. The correspondence was between Professor Hamblin and Michael Watson. Professor Hamblin wrote the article.

It's easy to write a letter. You can do it! And if one or both refuse, you can bring the matter up again here in Scratchworld, to the loud huzzahs of Rollo Tomasi and poor antishock8 and . . . Well, to the loud huzzahs of the mighty throngs who pant to know the fascinating truth about this Major Issue.

The fact that you won't even lift a finger to find out about this for yourself suggests that truth isn't a major interest of yours on this topic. Rather, posturing is.

[_Trevor]

And if one or both refuse, you can bring the matter up again here in Scratchworld, to the loud huzzahs of Rollo Tomasi and poor antishock8 and . . . Well, to the loud huzzahs of the mighty throngs who pant to know the fascinating truth about this Major Issue.

You need a new hobby.

[Physics Guy]

I don't understand why there is such ferocious, unbending resistance on DCP's part to just ask Hamblin to get the letter. I honestly don't get it.

LOL. "Ferocious"???

But it's your issue. Ask Professor Hamblin yourself, or ask Michael Watson.

We've been over this before. 1) I cannot ask Hamblin via the MADboard, since I have been banned. 2) Michael Watson only responds to either A) ecclesiastical leaders, or B) notable BYU professors and apologists.

I actually have very little to do with this. The correspondence was between Professor Hamblin and Michael Watson. Professor Hamblin wrote the article.

Aren't you interested in learning what Prof. Hamblin said that caused Watson to complete change his view of Church doctrine?

It's easy to write a letter. You can do it! And if one or both refuse, you can bring the matter up again here in Scratchworld, to the loud huzzahs of Rollo Tomasi and poor antishock8 and . . . Well, to the loud huzzahs of the mighty throngs who pant to know the fascinating truth about this Major Issue.

No, no---that's complete BS. We asked you about the incorrect Florida horse baloney which is posted to the FARMS website's FAQ, and you told us essentially the same thing: "Write a letter, and when you are predictably ignored, ask me again!" Why not cut to the chase here? You've demonstrated in the past that this is a dodging technique that you use. Why not just ask Bill? That would be the decent thing to do. If you were banned from this board, and wanted me to ask, say, antishock8 some question, I would happily do it. There is nothing preventing you from doing it. Failing to do it just makes it seem like you are hiding something. So go and ask him, Prof. P. Go and ask Bill about the two letters. Set the record straight. Exonerate your dear friend.

The fact that you won't even lift a finger to find out about this for yourself suggests that truth isn't a major interest of yours on this topic. Rather, posturing is.

"Lift a finger"? What do you call the endless CFRs issued to you both here and on other boards? It seems to me that *you* are the one who won't pony up the evidence, despite the fact that a major Mopologetic theory depends on it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You need a new hobby.

Ain't it the truth?

[_Trevor]

Ain't it the truth?

Best wishes with that. I need a new hobby too.

[_beastie]

Here's my suspicion:

I do believe Watson wrote a second letter retracting his first statement. I believe this letter was likely prompted by some "education" offered by Hamblin on the subject. I do not believe Hamblin (or anyone else) fabricated the letter.

However, I believe that there must be a reason Hamblin won't share the actual letter. I suspect it probably contains something that apologists do not want critics to see, along with the retraction. It could be something along the line of McConkie's letter declaring that BY really did teach Adam-God and that it was a false doctrine. Who knows. But I feel strongly there is something in there they don't want us to see.

The likelihood that Hamblin just lost a letter that would be so important to his own apologetics is extraordinarily unlikely.

[_Jason Bourne]

I think the LDS Church has long abandoned anything like official doctrine.

You are wrong on that account. The Church has internally, at least for the last 3 or 4 decades, via the CHI book 2, Teacher preparation courses, etc. elucidated the notion of official doctrine and how to determine it. The recent statement in my siggy simply publicizes it.

\

Could you point me to the place in the CHI that elucidates what doctrine is?

[_TAK]

From the OP:

On another thread, DCP revealed something rather startling:


Daniel Peterson wrote:
Whether the second letter still exists or not, I don't know. It definitely once did, because I saw it, the FARMS Review managing editor saw it, our source checker(s) saw it, and, of course, Professor Hamblin, to whom it was addressed, saw it.

Just curious..

This magic second letter that was taken away by angels, did you each see it with spiritual eys or were you looking in a hat?

[_antishock8]

I think the LDS Church has long abandoned anything like official doctrine.

You are wrong on that account. The Church has internally, at least for the last 3 or 4 decades, via the CHI book 2, Teacher preparation courses, etc. elucidated the notion of official doctrine and how to determine it. The recent statement in my siggy simply publicizes it.

\

Could you point me to the place in the CHI that elucidates what doctrine is?

Is the CHI canon?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

As for the letter from Michael Watson, I don't have a copy of it. Never did. And Professor Hamblin, as you know, says that he mislaid it.

Precisely the reason you ought to ask Bill to get a copy from Watson.

I can no more supply a copy of the letter to you than I can supply my old Chevy Monza. They're gone.

The Watson 2nd letter is not "gone." Hamblin could easily get a copy.

If you've read the article, you've read every single word of the letter's text. Every single one. All that was omitted was the date, the salutation, "Faithfully yours" (or some such thing), and the signature.

Also, the letterhead of the Office of the FP. Are you always this cavalier with primary sources? Kinda negates the need for footnotes, et al., don't ya think?

Evil Bill read it, I read it, our managing editor read it, and at least one source checker read it. It's quoted accurately and in full.

And, yet, not one made a copy.

Or else we're lying.

You said it, not me.