Daniel Peterson wrote:Actually, it's only once over. Since the letter was sent to Bill, he kept it, just as, presumably, the bishop to whom the other letter was sent kept it.
So far as I'm aware, Bill has no particular ties with General Authorities, either collectively or individually. I do, but he doesn't. And he's told me many times that he wants none. To be known in Salt Lake City, he says, is to be in danger of callings, etc.
If Hamblin is just a 'regular guy,' why wasn't Watson's 2nd letter sent to Hamblin's bishop?
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Rollo Tomasi wrote:If Hamblin is just a 'regular guy,' why wasn't Watson's 2nd letter sent to Hamblin's bishop?
I haven't the foggiest. Your best bet would be to contact Michael Watson.
Or you can speculate baselessly.
It would be easier to just ask Hamblin, and in this regard it would be nice to see a copy of Hamblin's initial letter to Watson (or has he lost that one, too?) in order to put Watson's reply in better context. Are you willing to ask him?
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Rollo Tomasi wrote:It would be easier to just ask Hamblin, and in this regard it would be nice to see a copy of Hamblin's initial letter to Watson (or has he lost that one, too?) in order to put Watson's reply in better context. Are you willing to ask him?
But you don't trust me and you don't trust Professor Hamblin. That's what this whole silly farce is supposedly about. So why would you trust my account of an account allegedly given to me by him?
Ask Professor Hamblin yourself. Or eliminate your dependence on people like us altogether (whose dishonesty, according to your research assistant, poor antishock8, is not in dispute), and go directly to Brother Watson.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:It would be easier to just ask Hamblin, and in this regard it would be nice to see a copy of Hamblin's initial letter to Watson (or has he lost that one, too?) in order to put Watson's reply in better context. Are you willing to ask him?
But you don't trust me and you don't trust Professor Hamblin. That's what this whole silly farce is supposedly about. So why would you trust my account of an account allegedly given to me by him?
I'm simply asking that he produce a copy that can be scanned (like the 1st Watson letter) and shown here. Why do you fight so hard against supplying one's cited source?
Ask Professor Hamblin yourself.
Why don't you? You're close friends and FARMS associates. Why are you trying to avoid this so much?
Or eliminate your dependence on people like us altogether (whose dishonesty, according to your research assistant, poor antishock8, is not in dispute), and go directly to Brother Watson.
Watson would not give me a copy of the letter; however, he would give it to Hamblin, since he was the actual addressee. Do you disagree?
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Rollo Tomasi wrote:It would be easier to just ask Hamblin, and in this regard it would be nice to see a copy of Hamblin's initial letter to Watson (or has he lost that one, too?) in order to put Watson's reply in better context. Are you willing to ask him?
But you don't trust me and you don't trust Professor Hamblin. That's what this whole silly farce is supposedly about. So why would you trust my account of an account allegedly given to me by him?
I'm simply asking that he produce a copy that can be scanned (like the 1st Watson letter) and shown here.
Easily forged. Have you forgotten that you believe us to be shameless and cunning liars?
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Why do you fight so hard against supplying one's cited source?
Has anybody ever cited Professor Hamblin's letter to Michael Watson anywhere? If so, I haven't seen the citation.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:
Ask Professor Hamblin yourself.
Why don't you? You're close friends and FARMS associates. Why are you trying to avoid this so much?
What's the point of an accused liar (let alone a proven liar like me) asking another accused liar (to say nothing of a proven liar like Evil Bill) for an account of their conspiratorial lie and then offering that up as cover for the initial conspiracy? Sheesh. Sometimes I almost think you folks don't actually believe the nonsense you spout.
You forget that I've seen the letter, that I regard this as a silly issue, that I don't take you and poor antishock8 very seriously, and that Scratch doesn't even seem to believe this nonsense at all.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:
Or eliminate your dependence on people like us altogether (whose dishonesty, according to your research assistant, poor antishock8, is not in dispute), and go directly to Brother Watson.
Watson would not give me a copy of the letter; however, he would give it to Hamblin, since he was the actual addressee. Do you disagree?
I have no idea. Try it. Tell him that you have good reason -- well, reason, anyway, or at least strong motivation -- to believe that two or more BYU employees conspired to misrepresent his views by attributing a non-existent letter to him. That should get his interest.
Admittedly, at one time I vacillated between skepticism and belief regarding the Watson letter.
Now, I think those who question the existence of the letter may be missing an important point.
The turning point for me was the change in the Book of Mormon title page. The change from "principal" to "among" was obviously an "official" change. Not that the title page is "official doctrine," but no one, I presume, monkeys around with any part, however trivial, of one of Mormonism's most sacred books of scripture. The change must have been officially sanctioned at some high level.
Whether we phrase the impetus for that change negatively or positively ("no evidence in favor of 'principal'" vs. "lots of evidence for LGT; thus, for 'among'"), the simple fact is that the "principal" statement had become untenable (though Charity attempted mightily to argue that there was precious little difference between the two statements, and that, if I recall, "among" was really what was intended all along).
The advent of LGT (many years a'comin') is the province of BYU scholars and Book of Mormon defenders. Whether secondary to face-to-face exchanges or the absorption by the Brethren of the LGT literature (probably some of both over the years), BYU scholars/Book of Mormon defenders made their case for the change. And, it was, apparently, successful.
There's nothing sinister in all this. Just the simple accumulation of facts, evidence, and scholarship that point away from "principal."
I think the second Watson letter is most likely a parallel situation on a micro level.
In light of the above, it strikes me as quite plausible--even likely--that Hamblin both inquired of Michael Watson and received the response.
Consider the evidence:
(1) The first Watson letter was widely distributed via the Tanners.
(2) It certainly has the appearance of being an official communication from the Office of the First Presidency.
(3) The letter was, presumably, being used as a bludgeon against more recent LDS apologetic claims about Book of Mormon (specifically the location of Cumorah).
(4) It was in the interest of LDS apologists to undermine the force of the Watson letter.
(5) William Hamblin contacted Michael Watson, specifically about his now-infamous, widely-leaked, first letter.
(6) William Hamblin received the (quasi-)"official" response he wanted: a response that directly undermines the force of the first letter.
(7) And consider this: Hamblin's letter to Watson appears to be in support of a his 1993 article, Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon. It seems most likely that Hamblin, in preparing such an article, would be highly motivated to obtain some "fix" for the problems created by the first letter.
I can only imagine that Hamblin's letter of inquiry was much more detailed and nuanced than a simple, "Do you still affirm what you wrote in the first letter? Yes or no." Rather, I think it likely that Hamblin would have constructed a detailed rehearsal of the relevant evidence for Watson's consideration. I also think it likely that he would have mentioned that the leaked letter was being routinely appropriated by anti-Mormons in an effort to disprove, or shed negative light on, Book of Mormon. I would have done, at least. Thus, Watson's second (corrective) missive, unfortunately now lost, but certainly not improbable on the face of it.
Watson's corrective, then, would be an example of apologetics (or, to be charitable, "better research") steering the wheel of (quasi-)"official" statements from higher-ups.
The alternative is that Hamblin forged a letter, or merely falsely purported to have received a letter, from a living individual connected to the Office of the First Presidency. That strikes me as highly unlikely.
Chris
Last edited by Guest on Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:It would be easier to just ask Hamblin, and in this regard it would be nice to see a copy of Hamblin's initial letter to Watson (or has he lost that one, too?) in order to put Watson's reply in better context. Are you willing to ask him?
But you don't trust me and you don't trust Professor Hamblin. That's what this whole silly farce is supposedly about. So why would you trust my account of an account allegedly given to me by him?
I'm simply asking that he produce a copy that can be scanned (like the 1st Watson letter) and shown here.
Easily forged. Have you forgotten that you believe us to be shameless and cunning liars?
Red herring.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Why do you fight so hard against supplying one's cited source?
Has anybody ever cited Professor Hamblin's letter to Michael Watson anywhere? If so, I haven't seen the citation.
You might want to look at footnote 70 of Hamblin's article published in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (Spring 1993), pp. 161-97, which has been reprinted and is currently on the Maxwell Institute's website.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:
Ask Professor Hamblin yourself.
Why don't you? You're close friends and FARMS associates. Why are you trying to avoid this so much?
What's the point of an accused liar (let alone a proven liar like me) asking another accused liar (to say nothing of a proven liar like Evil Bill) for an account of their conspiratorial lie and then offering that up as cover for the initial conspiracy? Sheesh. Sometimes I almost think you folks don't actually believe the nonsense you spout.
Doc, I never called you a liar -- I'm simply asking you (or Hamblin) to prove up the point at issue. Why do you always make yourself out the martyr whenever asked to back up a claim?
You forget that I've seen the letter ....
So you say, but I still want to see the letter. We also have the testimonies of the 3 and 8 Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, but I've never heard any Church leader claim that's enough.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:
Or eliminate your dependence on people like us altogether (whose dishonesty, according to your research assistant, poor antishock8, is not in dispute), and go directly to Brother Watson.
Watson would not give me a copy of the letter; however, he would give it to Hamblin, since he was the actual addressee. Do you disagree?
I have no idea. Try it. Tell him that you have good reason -- well, reason, anyway, or at least strong motivation -- to believe that two or more BYU employees conspired to misrepresent his views by attributing a non-existent letter to him. That should get his interest.
That wouldn't get his interest. However, since he responded directly to Hamblin before, there's no reason to think he wouldn't do it again (especially if Hamblin simply asks for a copy of previous correspondence between the two).
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Why do you fight so hard against supplying one's cited source?
Has anybody ever cited Professor Hamblin's letter to Michael Watson anywhere? If so, I haven't seen the citation.
You might want to look at footnote 70 of Hamblin's article published in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (Spring 1993), pp. 161-97, which has been reprinted and is currently on the Maxwell Institute's website.
Since you plainly haven't looked at it recently, I reproduce it here: "Correspondence from Michael Watson, Office of the First Presidency, 23 April 1993." No reference whatever to Professor Hamblin's letter to Michael Watson (which was the topic in question).
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.
I can no more supply a copy of the letter to you than I can supply my old Chevy Monza. They're gone.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Doc, I never called you a liar -- I'm simply asking you (or Hamblin) to prove up the point at issue. Why do you always make yourself out the martyr whenever asked to back up a claim?
Dang. You've seen through my antishock8 pseudonym?
I guess you realize that, if I'm really poor antishock8, there are even fewer of you in your little conspiracy-fantasist club?
Rollo Tomasi wrote:
You forget that I've seen the letter ....
So you say, but I still want to see the letter.
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.
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.
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. Is he afraid that something bad might turn up as a result of it? What I'm really interested in seeing is what cksalmon adduced in his post: Hamblin's original letter to Watson. I want to know: Did he send along a copy of his article, or did he cajole Watson into retracting his first letter? What? How did this change of heart come about?
Please, DCP: Just ask Bill to produce the letter. I don't think that's too much to ask.