More on the Financing of Mopologetics

[_antishock8]

Blah blah blah. I can't produce the letter because I'm a liar.

My head looks like a potato. A sweet potato.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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

Lemme see if I have this right:

1. You have never seen Hamblin's letter to Watson leading to Watson's second letter; and

2. Watson's second letter no longer exists (although his 1st letter does).

Got it.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Does this mean that Hamblin *did* write something? Your two statements here are contradictory.

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.

Who said anything about all three of you being complicit? It could be that Bill Hamblin acted alone, crafting a bogus letter and then showing it to you, knowing that you'd take it at face value. He does have quite a hot-button temper, and a proven tendency to act rashly.

I invite poor antishock8, as I have invited you, to raise that issue with the First Presidency.

The FP has stated publicly that it does not want to be bothered by letters from the rank-and-file, so your challenge rings hollow. (It's worth pointing out that Bro. Watson only responded in the first place because the query was made by an ecclesiastical leader on a member's behalf.) So, unless antishock8 and/or myself is a Bishop or SP, it seems unlikely that anyone at Church headquarters would give us the time of day.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Poor antishock8.

1. You have never seen Hamblin's letter to Watson leading to Watson's second letter

Not that I recall. It's been years. Maybe I did, but I don't remember it, and it's likely that I didn't.

Watson's second letter no longer exists (although his 1st letter does).

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.

Professor Hamblin tells me that he has mislaid the original. Since I've mislaid many things during my lifetime, and since I know Professor Hamblin well, this strikes as entirely plausible.

I've also never actually seen the first letter. I've only seen a purported photocopy of it, which could, I suppose, be a forgery. I don't believe it to be a forgery, and am not inclined to believe it a forgery, but, if I lived in the apologetic equivalent of Scratchworld, I suppose maybe I might imagine such a thing.

Does this mean that Hamblin *did* write something?

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.

Your two statements here are contradictory.

How?

Who said anything about all three of you being complicit? It could be that Bill Hamblin acted alone, crafting a bogus letter and then showing it to you, knowing that you'd take it at face value.

That's logically possible. But I've known Professor Hamblin for nearly thirty years, and I would be stunned if it were true.

I suggest that you, or poor antishock8, or your other supporter, chap, take this up with the First Presidency. If Professor Hamblin engaged in so blatantly an unethical practice, this would raise serious issues for his continued employment at the University. And, if true, his brazen forging of a document from the office of the First Presidency would very likely subject him to Church discipline. If you really believe your suggestion against Professor Hamblin, you should raise it with Church authorities. Your victory over him would be decisve, undeniable, and very public.

He does have quite a hot-button temper, and a proven tendency to act rashly.

I haven't noticed either of those. Perhaps you know him better than I do.

He has a wicked sense of humor and a blithe disregard for many social conventions. That's rather different.

The FP has stated publicly that it does not want to be bothered by letters from the rank-and-file, so your challenge rings hollow.

Nice attempt to parry.

I'm entirely confident that the First Presidency would be very interested in a case in which a member of the Church -- and a member of the faculty at BYU, no less -- forged First Presidency letterhead (remember, I saw the letter) and dishonestly attributed a statement to the office of the First Presidency in order to further his own historical/doctrinal agenda.

It's worth pointing out that Bro. Watson only responded in the first place because the query was made by an ecclesiastical leader on a member's behalf.) So, unless antishock8 and/or myself is a Bishop or SP, it seems unlikely that anyone at Church headquarters would give us the time of day.

It's worth pointing out that Professor Hamblin wasn't a bishop at the time he presumably wrote to the office of the First Presidency, and that he received a response. (Or, anyway, claims that he did.)

If you actually believe your insinuation against Professor Hamblin, the way to proceed is wide open before you. If you choose not to pursue this, it raises rather obvious doubts about how seriously you yourself take your accusation. And why should anybody else believe it if you don't?

[_antishock8]

Poor antishock8.

1. You have never seen Hamblin's letter to Watson leading to Watson's second letter

Not that I recall. It's been years. Maybe I did, but I don't remember it, and it's likely that I didn't.

Watson's second letter no longer exists (although his 1st letter does).

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.

Professor Hamblin tells me that he has mislaid the original. Since I've mislaid many things during my lifetime, and since I know Professor Hamblin well, this strikes as entirely plausible.

I've also never actually seen the first letter. I've only seen a purported photocopy of it, which could, I suppose, be a forgery. I don't believe it to be a forgery, and am not inclined to believe it a forgery, but, if I lived in the apologetic equivalent of Scratchworld, I suppose maybe I might imagine such a thing.

Does this mean that Hamblin *did* write something?

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.

Your two statements here are contradictory.

How?

Who said anything about all three of you being complicit? It could be that Bill Hamblin acted alone, crafting a bogus letter and then showing it to you, knowing that you'd take it at face value.

That's logically possible. But I've known Professor Hamblin for nearly thirty years, and I would be stunned if it were true.

I suggest that you, or poor antishock8, or your other supporter, chap, take this up with the First Presidency. If Professor Hamblin engaged in so blatantly an unethical practice, this would raise serious issues for his continued employment at the University. And, if true, his brazen forging of a document from the office of the First Presidency would very likely subject him to Church discipline. If you really believe your suggestion against Professor Hamblin, you should raise it with Church authorities. Your victory over him would be decisve, undeniable, and very public.

He does have quite a hot-button temper, and a proven tendency to act rashly.

I haven't noticed either of those. Perhaps you know him better than I do.

He has a wicked sense of humor and a blithe disregard for many social conventions. That's rather different.

The FP has stated publicly that it does not want to be bothered by letters from the rank-and-file, so your challenge rings hollow.

Nice attempt to parry.

I'm entirely confident that the First Presidency would be very interested in a case in which a member of the Church -- and a member of the faculty at BYU, no less -- forged First Presidency letterhead (remember, I saw the letter) and dishonestly attributed a statement to the office of the First Presidency in order to further his own historical/doctrinal agenda.

It's worth pointing out that Bro. Watson only responded in the first place because the query was made by an ecclesiastical leader on a member's behalf.) So, unless antishock8 and/or myself is a Bishop or SP, it seems unlikely that anyone at Church headquarters would give us the time of day.

It's worth pointing out that Professor Hamblin wasn't a bishop at the time he presumably wrote to the office of the First Presidency, and that he received a response. (Or, anyway, claims that he did.)

If you actually believe your insinuation against Professor Hamblin, the way to proceed is wide open before you. If you choose not to pursue this, it raises rather obvious doubts about how seriously you yourself take your accusation. And why should anybody else believe it if you don't?

No your Honor, I don't have the letter. No your Honor, he doesn't have the letter either. But, you see your Honor, I swear to gosh I saw it. And I swear to gosh my friends saw it, too! No your Honor, none of them have it. But listen, your Honor, if you really want to see it you can always ask my other friends if they've seen it. I swear to gosh they'll be mean to my other friend if he's not telling the truth. I swear!!

This has become the perfect example of Mormon lying.

1) Mormon makes less-than-credible claim.

2) Critic asks for proof.

3) Mormon says friends/family "witnessed" less-than-credible claim.

4) Critic insists friends/family witness not good enough. Wants proof.

5) Mormon, usually possessing potato-shaped head, obfuscates and ad homs critic.

6) Critic forced to point out lies and funny shape of head.

[_Mister Scratch]

Poor antishock8.

1. You have never seen Hamblin's letter to Watson leading to Watson's second letter

Not that I recall. It's been years. Maybe I did, but I don't remember it, and it's likely that I didn't.

Watson's second letter no longer exists (although his 1st letter does).

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.

Professor Hamblin tells me that he has mislaid the original. Since I've mislaid many things during my lifetime, and since I know Professor Hamblin well, this strikes as entirely plausible.

I've also never actually seen the first letter. I've only seen a purported photocopy of it, which could, I suppose, be a forgery. I don't believe it to be a forgery, and am not inclined to believe it a forgery, but, if I lived in the apologetic equivalent of Scratchworld, I suppose maybe I might imagine such a thing.

Does this mean that Hamblin *did* write something?

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.

Well, this is fascinating. Basically, what this means is that Hamblin has more power in terms of dictating doctrine than the Brethren.

He does have quite a hot-button temper, and a proven tendency to act rashly.

I haven't noticed either of those. Perhaps you know him better than I do.

He has a wicked sense of humor and a blithe disregard for many social conventions. That's rather different.

Well, maybe he thought a bogus letter would be "funny"?

The FP has stated publicly that it does not want to be bothered by letters from the rank-and-file, so your challenge rings hollow.

Nice attempt to parry.

How do you figure? Probably, if I wrote a letter, it would get as far as somebody very, very low on the Church totem pole. It would either go straight into the shredder, or it would get passed along to the SCMC. Correct?

I'm entirely confident that the First Presidency would be very interested in a case in which a member of the Church -- and a member of the faculty at BYU, no less -- forged First Presidency letterhead (remember, I saw the letter) and dishonestly attributed a statement to the office of the First Presidency in order to further his own historical/doctrinal agenda.

See, this is where your argument doesn't really make sense. Why would the Church want to throw one of its top defenders under the bus? You yourself have provided evidence of just how valuable apologists are to the Church. You stated that you were asked by this mysterious "fundraiser" to accompany him/her during one of these "outings." Honestly, Prof. P: What makes you think that some Joe Blow internet poster would even register on the FP's radar, especially when the Church has a proven track record of wanting to avoid embarrassment? Please, explain your logic to me here. I'll wait patiently for you to enlighten me.

It's worth pointing out that Bro. Watson only responded in the first place because the query was made by an ecclesiastical leader on a member's behalf.) So, unless antishock8 and/or myself is a Bishop or SP, it seems unlikely that anyone at Church headquarters would give us the time of day.

It's worth pointing out that Professor Hamblin wasn't a bishop at the time he presumably wrote to the office of the First Presidency, and that he received a response. (Or, anyway, claims that he did.)

A distinction without a difference. He is a BYU professor and an important apologist. You've stated on more than one occasion that you personally know a couple of the Brethren. Presumably, Hambling does as well, and thus he could use these connections to get the ear of Michael Watson.

If you actually believe your insinuation against Professor Hamblin, the way to proceed is wide open before you. If you choose not to pursue this, it raises rather obvious doubts about how seriously you yourself take your accusation. And why should anybody else believe it if you don't?

Lol. Did Prof. Hamblin actually forge a letter? I kind of doubt it, but admit, in the lack of any evidence from you guys (and let's not forget that you were the ones making the assertion about the 2nd Letter in the first place) it remains a possibility.

Anyways, the big point to take away from all of this is the fact that Prof. Bill Hamblin was able, almost single handedly, to totally revise Church doctrine. That, in my view, is extremely significant. It helps explain why the Brethren would want to employ a professional fundraiser to help finance Mopologetics.

[_Mister Scratch]

On a sidenote, it seems that The Good Professor's pinned MADthread has blown up in his face:

I do not believe that people who raise money or do web design or accounting for an organization that does apologetics (among its other activities) are, themselves, doing apologetics, any more than those who print apologetic books or bind them or ship them or drive a cargo truck carrying them or work the cash register at a bookstore where such books are sold are doing apologetics.

To the best of my knowledge, the Church pays no apologist for doing apologetics.

Hmmm.... What about "research assistants" such as Matt Roper?

Elsewhere in the thread, the nutjob known as Paul Ray is confused by DCP's sarcasm, and is apparently upset over the fact that people are paid to do Mopologetics. Sadly, it seems that he has been bogged down and confused by The Good Professor's sophistry and semantically dubious qualifications. E.g., "The Church pays no apologist!" Well, does BYU?

Elsewhere, "doubleagent007" expresses his mock outrage:

In the meantime, can someone point me to the website where I can donate to support the nefarious Maxwell Institute of Self Enrichment of Mopologists?

Well, he's probably just not wealthy enough, otherwise arrangements would have been made for him to meet with this shadowy, Church-appointed professional "fundraiser." It makes me wonder if the Church, or the SCMC, or whoever else maintains a list of ideal candidates for FARMS donations.

[_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?

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?

Nah, I'm not stalking ya. I don't spend much time on message boards anymore. As for responding primarily to your posts, that may well be the case, since from what I have seen, you are one of those on the board most likely to say something dumb, ignorant, or simply dishonest.

Anyways: No, I disagree. For one thing, I said, "virtually nothing to do with [DCP]", . . .

". . . virtually . . . "??? Well, that explains it. You're spending waaaaay too much time in virtual reality. ROFLMAO

[_Bond...James Bond]

Elsewhere, "doubleagent007" expresses his mock outrage:

I never noticed that poster...nice name.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, this is fascinating. Basically, what this means is that Hamblin has more power in terms of dictating doctrine than the Brethren.

ROTFL. Great stuff. Do you write your own material?

Probably, if I wrote a letter, it would get as far as somebody very, very low on the Church totem pole. It would either go straight into the shredder, or it would get passed along to the SCMC. Correct?

Nope. If the First Presidency really thought that somebody out there was forging its letterhead and creating bogus documents from the office of the First Presidency, that would, I have no doubt, catch their attention.

You lack the courage of your insinuations.

this shadowy, Church-appointed professional "fundraiser" . . . this mysterious "fundraiser"

I presume that you have in mind this mysterious and shadowy figure?

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/isparts ... n&whois=14

Running this clandestine, mystery-shrouded, cloak-and-dagger operation?

https://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/purchase_sub_now.php

Anyways, the big point to take away from all of this is the fact that Prof. Bill Hamblin was able, almost single handedly, to totally revise Church doctrine.

And he did it all from high above the earth, on the Mother Ship.

That, in my view, is extremely significant.

Your weird little pseudo-"discoveries" are always "watershed moments," "deeply revealing," "extremely significant," and the like. Apart from poor antishock8, though, I doubt that very many take your hype seriously. Even here.

It helps explain why the Brethren would want to employ a professional fundraiser to help finance Mopologetics.

Of course, Ed Snow is one of perhaps scores of LDS Philanthropies fundraisers who are assigned to areas like the Ira Fulton College of Engineering and Technology, the College of Physical Education, the J. Reuben Clark Law School, the Marriott School of Management, the College of Nursing, and so forth. He works on often non-apologetic priorities set by the leaders of the Maxwell Institute, to whom he is accountable, being on loan from the BYU development office, whose personnel are on loan from LDS Philanthropies, which reports to the Presiding Bishopric, which reports to the Brethren as a whole. Your notion that the Brethren directly fund and personally supervise "Mopologetics" rests on a great deal of hostile imagination but very little fact.