DiscussMormonism.com

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.

This statement is referring to the apocryphal "2nd Michael Watson" letter which was meant to rescind his original, in which he declared rather confidently that Church doctrine taught that the Hill Cumorah was located in New York, among other things. In the "2nd Letter," which landed in the hands of LDS apologists, Watson revised this statement so that it more closely conforms with present Mopologetic theories on the matter.

What is interesting is the reason why Watson apparently felt the need to revise this very old bit of LDS doctrine:

Daniel Peterson wrote:I assume that Professor Hamblin wrote a letter to the First Presidency or, more likely, to Michael Watson.

Unless I'm mistaken, Michael Watson's letter was a response to Professor Hamblin. I think it unlikely that Michael Watson simply wrote to Professor Hamblin out of the blue.

What's so striking to me is that Watson would do this. In effect, this demonstrates that apologists wield a certain degree of power when it comes to declaring doctrine. It seems to me that the rather recent change to the Book of Mormon intro also relates to Mopologetics in some sense. The Brethren may have been informed by some apologist that they were beating a hasty retreat in the face of stiff criticism on this issue, and thus a decision was made to revise the Intro.

So, I guess what I'm curious about is this:
---To what extent are the Brethren influenced by apologists' views?
---Are there regular, formal meetings between General Authorities and apologists in order to discuss the "lay of the land," as it were?
---What other areas of LDS doctrine have been affected by Mopologetics? (Perhaps, given the upcoming Joseph Smith seminar, we can conclude that official teachings pertaining to Joseph Smith will be revised?)

Edited to add: Is anyone else curious about what Hamblin's letter said? I would be willing to bet that he demanded a retraction printed on Church letterhead. "The antis will win unless you act now!" he might have said.

I think the LDS Church has long abandoned anything like official doctrine. We only have musings that can be denied later. That is why they love the apologists. They have no office and no claim on divine revelation. It gives the Church a change to float new ideas and try them on for size. When they are wrong or absurd, there is no mess to clean up like with Joseph Fielding Smith or Bruce R. The GAs can sit back in their red chairs and not risk anything. It is quite brilliant, actually.

Mister Scratch wrote:I would be willing to bet that he demanded a retraction printed on Church letterhead. "The antis will win unless you act now!" he might have said.

He might also have said "I know where your children go to school, their bus routes, and their pick-up times."

Or he might have said, "I'll reveal our secret love affair if you don't pony up the statement that I demand."

Or, alternatively, he might have said "I'll put a spell on you."

Or, conceivably, he might have said, "We are the knights who say Ni" and demanded a shrubbery.

When imagination is completely severed from any mooring in evidence but blended with weirdly obsessive hostility and a zest for conspiratorial fantasies, the sky's the limit.

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.

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:I would be willing to bet that he demanded a retraction printed on Church letterhead. "The antis will win unless you act now!" he might have said.

He might also have said "I know where your children go to school, their bus routes, and their pick-up times."

Or he might have said, "I'll reveal our secret love affair if you don't pony up the statement that I demand."

Or, alternatively, he might have said "I'll put a spell on you."

Or, conceivably, he might have said, "We are the knights who say Ni" and demanded a shrubbery.

When imagination is completely severed from any mooring in evidence but blended with weirdly obsessive hostility and a zest for conspiratorial fantasies, the sky's the limit.

Maybe this has already been answered (a thread with so much DCP-generated squid camouflage in it does not engage me very much, and I may have skimmed too rapidly). But why did Hamblin feel it necessary to ask for what amounted to a retraction from Watson?

DCP spends his presumably valuable time listing some silly non-reasons (has he nothing better to do?). He does nothing to make the obvious hypothesis at the head of this post less likely. Indeed, given the nature of the original statement on the Hill Cumorah and the nature of the alleged retraction, it is very hard to imagine any other reasons than the one advanced: the original letter contradicted the apparently settled policy of leaving that kind of question strictly in the world of mopologetics - a world that for the First Presidency has the great advantage of total deniability.

You are wrong on that account. The Church has internally, at least for the last 3 or 4 decades, via the CHI book 2, ...

I cannot read a sealed book.

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:I would be willing to bet that he demanded a retraction printed on Church letterhead. "The antis will win unless you act now!" he might have said.

He might also have said "I know where your children go to school, their bus routes, and their pick-up times."

Or he might have said, "I'll reveal our secret love affair if you don't pony up the statement that I demand."

Or, alternatively, he might have said "I'll put a spell on you."

Or, conceivably, he might have said, "We are the knights who say Ni" and demanded a shrubbery.

When imagination is completely severed from any mooring in evidence but blended with weirdly obsessive hostility and a zest for conspiratorial fantasies, the sky's the limit.

Oh when did you come back?

Nice avatar by the way, it fits what you do.

bcspace wrote:

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.

The Handbook that cannot be known by the public elucidates official doctrine?

John Larsen wrote:

I cannot read a sealed book.

Do you realize you are fulfilling 3,000 year-old prophecy every time you say that? Please edit your post before some apologist reads it!

To whom was the first letter written?

If not to Hamblin, why would he write to the first presidency to clarify a letter written to another individual?