More on the Financing of Mopologetics

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Why would you consider my musing that Bill Hamblin may have forged a document to be "courageous"? It was speculation and nothing more. And now you are asking me to sacrifice my anonymity and risk having my familial relationships interfered with, and perhaps my life destroyed, like has been done to other Church figures such as D. Michael Quinn. In short: No, thanks, Prof. P.! Besides, if the consequences for Bill Hamblin would really be that dire, then I don't want to be the one responsible for his "downfall." Unlike you guys, I don't take pleasure in seeing people's lives destroyed simply because I disagree with them.

Anyways, all of this is just fog. You are niftily avoiding the main issue, which is: A) Why did Hamblin write Watson in the first place? and B) What did Hamblin's letter say?

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.

Thank you for so clearly laying out the chain of command. Well, this only supports my theory that the Brethren have a long "trail of breadcrumbs" which makes it difficult to pin anything controversial on them. Too bad that this Bill Hamblin letter proves how influential apologetics is vis-a-vis doctrine.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

Then show us a photocopy of the 2nd Watson letter. Are you saying that doesn't exist either?

I suggest that you, or poor antishock8, or your other supporter, chap, take this up with the First Presidency.

Here's a better suggestion: Hamblin should ask Watson for a copy of the 2nd letter (I'm sure Watson, or his successor, would have such a copy). And I doubt Watson would give a copy to anyone other than Hamblin, since he was the sole addressee.

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.

Again, Hamblin should simply request a copy; this should be very easy. Since his rep is on the line about this mysterious and missing letter, I would think he'd be anxious to get a copy and set the record straight. Frankly, I'm amazed he hasn't already done so, which makes me wonder ....

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?

There's no reason anyone here has to "prove" the 2nd letter exists -- Hamblin (and you) are claiming it does exist but yet can't produce a copy. The burden is on Hamblin, my friend, and it's time for him (and you) to put up or shut up.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Then show us a photocopy of the 2nd Watson letter. Are you saying that doesn't exist either?

I never made one. You may write to Professor Hamblin and request it.

Here's a better suggestion: Hamblin should ask Watson for a copy of the 2nd letter (I'm sure Watson, or his successor, would have such a copy). And I doubt Watson would give a copy to anyone other than Hamblin, since he was the sole addressee.

Write to Professor Hamblin and demand that he do this.

Again, Hamblin should simply request a copy; this should be very easy. Since his rep is on the line about this mysterious and missing letter, I would think he'd be anxious to get a copy and set the record straight. Frankly, I'm amazed he hasn't already done so, which makes me wonder ....

I don't think that "his rep is on the line" for anybody except Scratch and three or four of Scratch's disciples -- with whom Professor Hamblin has no possible hope of having a good reputation anyway. So far as I'm aware, nobody else alleges that he's a forger. The tempest, such as it is, exists in your tiny little teapot, and there alone. I'm not even sure that Professor Hamblin is aware of the speculations and insinuations that agitate Scratchworld on this topic.

There's no reason anyone here has to "prove" the 2nd letter exists -- Hamblin (and you) are claiming it does exist but yet can't produce a copy. The burden is on Hamblin, my friend, and it's time for him (and you) to put up or shut up.

The text of the letter has been put up. It's been up for years.

Scratchworld may still be reeling from that, but we moved on years ago. If you want to make it an issue, you'll have to make it an issue sufficient that Professor Hamblin will feel that he needs to respond. As it is, he doesn't.

Good luck.

[_Dr. Shades]

Regardless of all else, something significant occurred:

1st Watson Letter

Ronnie Sparks writes to 1st Presidency, reply gets sent to Ronnie Sparks' bishop.

2nd Watson Letter

Bill Hamblin writes to 1st Presidency, reply gets sent to Bill Hamblin directly, not to Bill Hamblin's bishop.

So we see that, if nothing else, the First Presidency saw fit to make an exception for Professor Hamblin. They broke protocol on his account. Why is that, if he doesn't have their ear in some way, as Mister Scratch suggests?

[_antishock8]

The text of the letter has been put up. It's been up for years.

Scratchworld may still be reeling from that, but we moved on years ago. If you want to make it an issue, you'll have to make it an issue sufficient that Professor Hamblin will feel that he needs to respond. As it is, he doesn't.

Good luck.

Produce the letter. Put up or shut up. You assert it exists; you're the one that has the burden to prove it exists. Until then you're just a bloviating liar.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Until then you're just a bloviating liar.

As if, in Scratchworld's kindergarten, I would cease to be a potato head and a bloviating liar even then!

[_antishock8]

Until then you're just a bloviating liar.

As if, in Scratchworld's kindergarten, I would cease to be a potato head and a bloviating liar even then!

Still waiting on you to produce that letter. Until then you're a liar. You make the claim. You back it up. If you can't, you are a liar.

[_Yong Xi]

Has Bill Hamblin commented on this thread yet? Maybe he has and I didn't see it.

[_Mister Scratch]

Has Bill Hamblin commented on this thread yet? Maybe he has and I didn't see it.

He stated on the pinned MAD thread that he was very angry about what we've been saying, and that he thinks we are "liars and idiots."

Or are you referring to the 2nd Watson Letter issue? No, he hasn't commented on that, as far as I know. Personally, I think he should register and begin posting here. Also: for the record, I doubt very much that DCP himself is lying about anything. If anyone has been dishonest (and I'm perfectly willing to extend the benefit of the doubt), it was Bill Hamblin. It is Hamblin who has some explaining to do.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So's your old man, antishock8.

And your mother wears army boots.

Neener neener neener!