Peterson Misleading Again

[_cksalmon]

This is the most interesting thing on this thread:

Dear Brother Watson:

We face a grave threat from the anti-Mormons. Although you surely did not intend it, your letter attempting to clarify the location of the Hill Cumorah has fallen into the hands of the Tanners. We cannot have this. Perhaps you are not aware, but the good Brothers and Sisters at FARMS have been very busy trying to locate the real Hill Cumorah in the Chiapas region of Mexico. By telling people that the Brethren officially believe Cumorah to be located in New York, we risk losing the faith of thousands of Latter-day Saints, since it appears that the best LDS scholars and the Brethren are not on the same page. While it is possible that the Hill is indeed in New York, at the present time the bulk of evidence points to a Latin American locale.

I urge you to issue a retraction letter as soon as possible, before it can appear that apologists and the Brethren are not united in their doctrinal understanding. I am sure you are sensitive to the gravity of this situation, and that you will act as promptly and hastily as possible.

Your Brother-in-arms,

William Hamblin, Ph.D.

What is interesting about this is that high-profile apologists feel entitled to "correct" the brethren, so to speak. Members at large certainly don't feel that kind of privilege or right. The second interesting thing is that the brethren accepted the correction.

Kind of at odds with the idea of a leadership led by revelation.

I agree, and I, for one, am extremely grateful to A. Friend for transcribing the text of Dr. Hamblin's letter. Further, in addition to the "corrective" element you note, Beastie, I think it is intriguing to observe a form of "correlation" taking place. Plus, one cannot help but notice a very real fear that critics such as the Tanners might gain the upper hand in the battle for members.

Seriously!?

I'll start tithing to the LDS Church if this is actually Hamblin's letter to Watson.

...you will act as promptly and hastily as possible

This is three-dollar bill territory.

[_truth dancer]

So I think we can safely assume that the second watson letter is real.

Only if we safely assume this letter is real which I can't imagine.

;-)

~dancer~

[_Arnold Friend]

I swear on my life that the letter is legitamite. I saw it with my own eyes. i guess it could be that someone else wrote the letter and put hamblins name on it. But I swear that I saw that letter and that text arrive at Church headquarters.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If Bill Hamblin wrote that letter, I'm Barack Obama . . . who is posting here as "Scratch."

It's really funny to see certain folks who pride themselves on their having risen above the gullible herd swallowing "Arnold Friend's" parody as if it were authentic.

[Guest]

I swear on my life that the letter is legitamite. I saw it with my own eyes. i guess it could be that someone else wrote the letter and put hamblins name on it. But I swear that I saw that letter and that text arrive at Church headquarters.

Then scan your copy and post it here, at the very least.

I don't know you, Friend, and the oh-so-desperate, demanding tenor of the alleged communication reads, to me, as quite obviously faked.

I don't buy it for a second.

And make sure there are some JPEG artifacts surrounding the text.

[_Mister Scratch]

If Bill Hamblin wrote that letter, I'm Barack Obama . . . who is posting here as "Scratch."

It's really funny to see certain folks who pride themselves on their having risen above the gullible herd swallowing "Arnold Friend's" parody as if it were authentic.

Since you are unwilling to tell us what Hamblin's letter said, I don't see any reason why we should doubt the text that Arnold has given us. Obviously, your reticence means you are hiding something, and, well, now that I have seen this letter, I think I know why.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Since you are unwilling to tell us what Hamblin's letter said

"Unwilling"??? I saw it only once, and that was over fifteen years ago!

But I can guarantee you that the author of "Arnold Friend's" ridiculous parody wasn't Bill Hamblin.

I don't see any reason why we should doubt the text that Arnold has given us.

Of course you don't. Hypersuspicious when it fits your creepy agenda, but a gullible sheep when that suits your agenda.

Obviously, your reticence means you are hiding something

My "reticence"?

and, well, now that I have seen this letter, I think I know why.

ROFL.

"Arnold Friend," who, for all I know, is you yourself on a different computer, has just given you a whole new line of nonsense to speculate from. You must be fairly giddy with delight.

[_Trevor]

I swear on my life...

You lost me right there.

[_beastie]

If Bill Hamblin wrote that letter, I'm Barack Obama . . . who is posting here as "Scratch."

It's really funny to see certain folks who pride themselves on their having risen above the gullible herd swallowing "Arnold Friend's" parody as if it were authentic.

Who's risen above the gullible herd? I've always been very gullible, which is why I joined the Mormon church.

[_cksalmon]

If Bill Hamblin wrote that letter, I'm Barack Obama . . . who is posting here as "Scratch."

It's really funny to see certain folks who pride themselves on their having risen above the gullible herd swallowing "Arnold Friend's" parody as if it were authentic.

Since you are unwilling to tell us what Hamblin's letter said, I don't see any reason why we should doubt the text that Arnold has given us. Obviously, your reticence means you are hiding something, and, well, now that I have seen this letter, I think I know why.

Propositionalized:

(1) DCP will not (or, is not able) to disclose the text of Hamblin's letter.

Therefore,

(2) The alleged text of Hamblin's letter supplied by Arnold Friend should be considered true.

This is the logical fallacy of negative proof.

It's an inherently fallacious argument and is certainly not, to any degree, compelling.