More on the Financing of Mopologetics

[_Mister Scratch]

---------------- THREE YEARS LATER -----------------

The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. 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.

---------------- WHO GOT THE FIRST PRESIDENCY VIA ITS SECRETARY TO ISSUE A RETRACTION? ----------------------

The only people to ever be in possession of this 2nd Letter, as far as I know, are the apologists, in particular, Professor William Hamblin. I hasten to add, by the way, that Hamblin has since lost this letter. No one save the apologists has ever seen it, so we have to accept on trust that they ever possessed it in the first place. Further, I guess we have to assume that Hamblin and/or DCP "ordered" Watson to issue this retraction. If true, this would mean that the apologists wield a rather staggering amount of power.

The first letter seems to be acknowledged as genuine by all parties.

But it seems reasonable to postpone belief in the second letter until someone actually produces it. In fact, till that is done, I tend to disbelieve it. Retractions in such a short time interval do not sound like typical First Presidency style, do they?

Yeah, I don't know. It is a tough call. I had a discussion with Dr. Peterson on this issue some time ago, and he swore up and down that the 2nd Watson letter exists, and that is is merely "lost" in Bill Hamblin's abhorrently messy office. He went on to challenge me to write a letter to the FP asking for a copy, or to phone up Watson and ask him about it. I should add that there is a scan of the 1st Letter, freely available to all, but the only "proof" we have of the 2nd Letter is DCP's testimonial, and the supposedly reprinted text in FARMS Review, or wherever it was that they published it.

As to this issue of the "interval"... Well, it was three years. Then again, you are right to note that any retractions of any kind whatsoever are extremely uncharacteristic of the Brethren. So: I don't know. I tend to want to give DCP the benefit of the doubt, but the whole affair is very, very shady.

[_Chap]

I had a discussion with Dr. Peterson on this issue some time ago, and he swore up and down that the 2nd Watson letter exists, and that is is merely "lost" in Bill Hamblin's abhorrently messy office. He went on to challenge me to write a letter to the FP asking for a copy, or to phone up Watson and ask him about it.

(a) We note that he DCP can safely issue this challenge, since each of the two courses of action he recommends to you involve a loss of your anonymity.

(b) WTF? They say the letter exists, and the burden of proof is on YOU?

Until they prove otherwise, I recommend disbelief as the safest course. May be wrong, of course, but in default of hard evidence there are only the probabilities to go on.

[_Daniel Peterson]

This reminds me of an astute observation Shades once made regarding MAD - it really isn't devoted as much to defense of Mormonism, per se, but rather the defense of Mormon internet apologia. Likewise, it appears DCP is more interested in responding to attacks on the general practice of apologia than he is interested in responding to attacks on the basic truth claims of the LDS church.

An understandable misperception, perhaps, if one is unfamiliar with what I publish.

Yes, yes, I know he will rush to respond he saves his serious commentary for his articles, not for internet boards,

Precisely.

but he could still produce serious commentary and respond to attacks on truth claims on internet boards with the same amount of time he currently spends on defending apologetics.

I disagree.

We "tell" what we care the most about by our actions.

Which is why judging the interests and priorities of a published author and editor from what he posts on message boards is so obviously misguided.

[_beastie]

Which is why judging the interests and priorities of a published author and editor from what he posts on message boards is so obviously misguided.

I'm talking specifically about your interests and priorities as an apologist.

Here's what I think can be stated:

1 - You are interested in defending the church's claims, but prefer to do so in a setting where you will not be directly challenged, such as in FARMS articles

2 - You regularly spend a certain amount of time perusing/participating on exmormon/Mormon internet boards, but the majority of your time and energy is spent collecting the "worst of the worst" quotes from exmormons, defending apologia and apologists in general, and not spent responding to challenges to the content of that apologia. I have seen you respond to challenges of the content of apologia in the past, but it is infrequent.

You're as obsessed with scratch as he is with you. He's doing the one thing that will predictably get your attention. The truth claims of the LDS church can be criticized and analyzed on other threads, and you are content to ignore all of them, but the one topic that will get your attention is criticism of apologists, especially yourself.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm talking specifically about your interests and priorities as an apologist.

So am I.

You are interested in defending the church's claims, but prefer to do so in a setting where you will not be directly challenged, such as in FARMS articles

I debated for my high school, and I did well. But I also learned that winning a debate often had more to do with quick wittedness and rhetoric (both of which I'm reasonably good at) than with the actual strength of one's case. I don't think that oral debate is a particularly good way of getting at the truth.

That said, I've done radio debates with the likes of James White and Bill McKeever (and will, just as a matter of interest, debate Islam with the widely published critic of Islam Robert Spencer next month in Las Vegas).

I think that internet debate has a better shot at getting at the truth, but at a considerable cost in effort that, in my view, would be better devoted to published exchanges or simply to publishing. I've had such exchanges and/or published them with people like Drs. Paul Owen, Carl Mosser, and Michael Heiser.

I don't necessarily think "directness" of challenge an all-important consideration. Anything that I publish will, I know, almost immediately be challenged at various places on the internet and eventually, sometimes, even in print (e.g., by Mike Quinn, etc.). I'm fine with this, and will respond in my own way and on my own schedule.

You regularly spend a certain amount of time perusing/participating on exmormon/Mormon internet boards, but the majority of your time and energy [i.e., the time and energy that I spend perusing the board formerly known as FAIR, and less commongly this one, and, much less commonly still, 2-3 others] is spent collecting the "worst of the worst" quotes from exmormons, defending apologia and apologists in general, and not spent responding to challenges to the content of that apologia.

There is some truth in that -- I'm oddly fascinated by bad public behaviour and uncivil discourse -- but perhaps not as much truth as you imagine.

I have seen you respond to challenges of the content of apologia in the past, but it is infrequent.

It isn't altogether surprising that my internet interests aren't precisely what you think they should be.

You're as obsessed with scratch as he is with you.

LOL. I confess that I do find his behavior interesting. But I go weeks and even months without posting anything about him. He may never have gone a week without starting a thread about me. let alone without posting about me. And, when I respond to him, I respond to his comments about me. When he starts threads about me, they're just threads about me.

This doesn't seem altogether symmetrical.

[_Mister Scratch]

LOL. I confess that I do find his behavior interesting. But I go weeks and even months without posting anything about him. He may never have gone a week without starting a thread about me. let alone without posting about me. And, when I respond to him, I respond to his comments about me. When he starts threads about me, they're just threads about me.

This doesn't seem altogether symmetrical.

This present thread had virtually nothing to do with you in particular until you showed up. This just demonstrates your penchant for spin and obfuscation.

by the way: Who told Michael Watson to revise his "ill-advised" 1st Letter? You? Bill Hamblin? One of the Brethren? Who?

[_mbeesley]

This present thread had virtually nothing to do with you in particular until you showed up.

That's not all-together true, now then, is it, Scratch??? Go back and read your opening post. How many people are personally named? I'll give you some time to do your review . . .
.
.
.
.
Jeopardy Theme
.
.
.
.

Finished? Ok, then, now since DCP is one of the people you personally named in your opening post, how can you possibly assert that the thread has nothing to do with him in particular? Do you consider Church History and Church Doctrine with the same kind of imprecision?

[_antishock8]

LOL. I confess that I do find his behavior interesting. But I go weeks and even months without posting anything about him. He may never have gone a week without starting a thread about me. let alone without posting about me. And, when I respond to him, I respond to his comments about me. When he starts threads about me, they're just threads about me.

This doesn't seem altogether symmetrical.

This present thread had virtually nothing to do with you in particular until you showed up. This just demonstrates your penchant for spin and obfuscation.

by the way: Who told Michael Watson to revise his "ill-advised" 1st Letter? You? Bill Hamblin? One of the Brethren? Who?

More importantly, would someone just produce it? Please? Because I'm at the point that I think they're lying about the second letter.

[_Mister Scratch]

This present thread had virtually nothing to do with you in particular until you showed up.

That's not all-together true, now then, is it, Scratch??? Go back and read your opening post. How many people are personally named? I'll give you some time to do your review . . .
.
.
.
.
Jeopardy Theme
.
.
.
.

Finished? Ok, then, now since DCP is one of the people you personally named in your opening post, how can you possibly assert that the thread has nothing to do with him in particular? Do you consider Church History and Church Doctrine with the same kind of imprecision?

You know, mbeesley, I have noticed that the bulk of your posts seem to occur when you think you've discovered some "gotcha!" point having to do with *my* posts. It is as if you are lurking, combing through my posts in the hopes of catching me on something. You're not stalking me, are you?

Anyways: No, I disagree. For one thing, I said, "virtually nothing to do with [DCP]", and indeed, as the thread titles says, this was meant to be about the financing of apologetics. DCP was incidental at best to this topic. (Until he showed up, that is.)

[_Daniel Peterson]

This present thread had virtually nothing to do with you in particular until you showed up. This just demonstrates your penchant for spin and obfuscation.

Sometimes it's almost tempting to imagine that you actually believe some of the things you say.

Who told Michael Watson to revise his "ill-advised" 1st Letter? You? Bill Hamblin? One of the Brethren? Who?

I have no idea who told him to do so, nor even that anybody did tell him to do so.

I also haven't seen what Professor Hamblin wrote to him that led him to write the second letter.

Poor antishock8, your Igor, believes, as you yourself have sometimes suggested, that Dr. Hamblin and I and the managing editor of the FARMS Review actually conspired to forge a letter from the secretary to the First Presidency and then dishonestly attributed it to him, in print. I invite poor antishock8, as I have invited you, to raise that issue with the First Presidency. I should think that, if it actually happened, such an offense -- a manifest ethical breach, among other things -- would be serious grounds for ecclesiastical action against us and could threaten our employment at BYU. If either you or poor antishock8 truly believes that we did such a thing, there is an obvious course to take. And, if we did do it, your victory over us will be clear, very public, and decisive.