In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[Uncle Dale]

And what is it that, for you, makes it the most promising and exciting?

(When the manuscript was discovered years ago - which deflated the Spaulding myth for many others.)

Of course, without that particular manuscript, Matt Jockers would not have been

able to locate enough Solomon Spalding "base text" in order to establish a literary

"word-print" for that would-be author. And without that word-print would never have

published his 2008 computerized study results for the Book of Mormon.

So -- all in all -- some of us are rather pleased that the manuscript was discovered

(here, where I live -- not in the 21st century nor the 20th -- so, yes, "years ago.")

UD

[beastie]

Daniel - did you take as much offense to Hamblin telling you that you're senile that you did to other folks saying your age could be related to memory degradation?

And Scott, how in the world has Hamblin's career survived, given his erroneous attribution in his article? Isn't this exactly the type of thing that earlier today you found unimaginable?

BTW, I think DCP deserved kudos for being upfront about this additional information, in spite of the fact that he knew it would open him to further criticism. As I have said repeatedly, I have never thought he was lying about this, but I felt fairly confident his memory was unreliable. The cause for my confidence was simply that it just didn't make sense, and that the simplest explanation was fallible memory, subject to later subconscious redaction. Perhaps he will no longer take offense to me saying so. I hope it doesn't shock him that professional scholars are as susceptible to this as mere mortals as it appears to shock Scott.

[Scott Lloyd]

Somebody pass Scott the smelling salts. I'm sure he's swooned at the notion of professional scholars having fallible memories.

I, of course, never denied such fallibility. I merely questioned your certitude with obviously nothing more to go on than musings based on someting you've read. I was weighing the likelihood -- not the possibility -- that they misremembered a fax from someone else as being a letter from Michael Watson. It didn't comport with the attribution that appeared in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies shortly thereafter, an attribution that was never challenged or disputed by Watson or the First Presidency's office.

And, as it turns out, you were quite wrong. (I wonder if you are going to admit that.) Dr. Peterson's memory was correct pertaining to what he actually knew: that there was a letter signed by Michael Watson, a letter he himself had seen and handled. The mid-'80s origin of the letter was something he was unaware of until receiving this latest clarification from Bill Hamblin.

And tell me again why you think a brief entry in a concordance trumps a standard statement that has been sent out from the office of the First Presidency for -- what? -- nigh on a quarter century now, as it turns out.

And I never said you accused Professors Peterson and Hamblin of lying; I don't know why you think I did.

[beastie]

Anyone else remember when certain apologists made a huge stink over Dan Vogel's footnote error? Hmmm?

Just in case anyone forgot:

And, btw, that "error" was far more slight than this one appears to be.

[Scott Lloyd]

Daniel - did you take as much offense to Hamblin telling you that you're senile that you did to other folks saying your age could be related to memory degradation?

Obviously, the two have the sort of relationship where they trade good-natured barbs back and forth, as good friends are wont to do. That's not the same thing as unfounded digs from hostile strangers. I find it incredible that you can't tell the difference.

And Scott, how in the world has Hamblin's career survived, given his erroneous attribution in his article? Isn't this exactly the type of thing that earlier today you found unimaginable?

My theory is that someone in the FARMS office contacted the First Presidency's office to confirm and bring up to date what was in the letter Professor Hamblin already possessed; the Carla Ogden fax constituted that confirmation. Perhaps that was why a 1993 date was given instead of a mid-'80s one.

BTW, I think DCP deserved kudos for being upfront about this additional information, in spite of the fact that he knew it would open him to further criticism.

I agree. I've observed him for several years now, and such candor and integrity is characteristic of him. Which is why he doesn't deserve the vicious character assassination to which he is continually subjected on your board.

As I have said repeatedly, I have never thought he was lying about this, but I felt fairly confident his memory was unreliable.

I wonder when you are going to recognize -- and admit -- that you were wrong. (As was Brent Metcalfe, by the way, in his assumption that the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry was the source document for the Watson statement.)

The cause for my confidence was simply that it just didn't make sense.

Are you going to explain how it makes sense that the publishers of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies would fabricate a quote attribution, with the likelihood that it would get them into trouble?

[Scott Lloyd]

1985 - Watson: no geographical claims

1990 - Watson: same Cumorah

1991 - Encyclopedia of Mormonism: no geographical claims

1993 - Carla Ogden: no geographical claims

It now becomes apparent that the language in the '85 and '93 letters weren't pulled out of the '91 Encyclopedia, but that the language of all three came from a preexisting church response to the issue.

So the "second Watson letter" is really the first Watson letter. And the former "first Watson letter," on which the critics have relied all these years, turns out to be anomalous. Have I got it right?

[beastie]

Obviously, the two have the sort of relationship where they trade good-natured barbs back and forth, as good friends are wont to do. That's not the same thing as unfounded digs from hostile strangers. I find it incredible that you can't tell the difference.

I find it incredible that you apparently are still unable to tell the difference between what was actually speculated about DCP

[beastie]

Wait a minute. If Watson knew in 1985 that the official church position was that there is no position on Cumorah, why the heck did he write the 1990 letter in the first place? And why did he need educated in 1990, when he supposedly knew the right answer in 1985???

[Uncle Dale]

Wait a minute. If Watson knew in 1985 that the official church position was that there is no position on Cumorah, why the heck did he write the 1990 letter in the first place? And why did he need educated in 1990, when he supposedly knew the right answer in 1985???

Perhaps there was a temporary "swing" in sentiment back to the New York

setting -- a bit of reassessing McConkie, etc. -- that ended up being

just that, temporary. Perhaps Watson went a bit too far in that direction,

because it was what he believed, and because of a temporary vagueness

among his "bosses." They may not have been 100% homogeneous in their

"unified" policy. But, later, things jelled and Watson was a bit out

of step for a while. "Didn't get the memo," as they say.

UD

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wait a minute. If Watson knew in 1985 that the official church position was that there is no position on Cumorah, why the heck did he write the 1990 letter in the first place? And why did he need educated in 1990, when he supposedly knew the right answer in 1985???

I suggest you ask him that question. He would be the only person that could answer it, unless you have developed some serious mind reading skillz. That would make you so L337.

[Zakuska]

I suggest you ask him that question. He would be the only person that could answer it, unless you have developed some serious mind reading skillz. That would make you so L337.

What she really needs is some computer hacking skillz.

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, I think this conclusively establishes that your recollection on this matter cannot be trusted.

What have I misremembered?

I don't believe that I ever knew that he had received it much earlier. I assumed that it had come in response to a question he had posed, in connection with the article he was writing.

My memory is, and has always been, that I saw a letter, and that the letter was from Michael Watson. I still stand by that.

One question immediately pops into my mind. Have you ever talked to Bill about the Watson letter controversy before?

I've mentioned it to him. He thinks it's ridiculous and not worth his notice.

It's hard to believe that he never mentioned such a critical fact to you (or apparently anyone else) in the 15+ years that this has been an issue.

As I've said before, I don't regard this as a big issue, and I've paid far more attention to it than has Professor Hamblin (by virtue of the simple fact that I pay attention to message boards, whereas he, by and large, doesn't, and nobody else at the Maxwell Institute has paid even the slightest attention (for the simple reason that they don't waste any time on message boards).

This is an issue that, as far as I know, agitates only a handful of people at the Compound. It just isn't that big a deal to us.

Why am I personally interested? Because I've been accused, publicly but anonymously, of being a liar and a forger. Oddly, I dislike that.

Has Bill ever participated in any discussions on this subject on the Internet (e.g., ZLMB)?

Not to my knowledge.

I have one more follow-up question. Would you mind sharing the text of the communication that you sent to Bill that caused him to send his reply to you?

No problem. Here it is:

From: Daniel Peterson <daniel_peterson@byu.edu>

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:47:22 -0700

To: William Hamblin <XXXXXXXXXX>

Conversation: The Watson Letter

Subject: The Watson Letter

Bill:

We continue to be assaulted, with ever increasing ferocity, as liars and as senile.

So I contacted the Office of the First Presidency, and asked them whether they could locate a 1993 letter from Michael Watson to you. They have computerized records going back to 1987. They could not locate such a letter.

Are we liars? Are we senile?

Dan

Daniel - did you take as much offense to Hamblin telling you that you're senile that you did to other folks saying your age could be related to memory degradation?

I took none at all.

For one thing, I've known Professor Hamblin for twenty-nine years. (I first met him in Cairo.) We've been close friends for very nearly three decades. By contrast, the person who suggested that my employer, my family, and all my friends are concerned about my allegedly failing mental powers -- you say that's not a description of age-related dementia, but it walks and quacks like that particular duck to me -- has never met me, and would, I suspect, not recognize me if we passed each other on the street.

Secondly, I understand Professor Hamblin's sense of humor exceptionally well, and I know he didn't mean it seriously.

Thirdly, as you will have noticed by now, I was the one who introduced the notion of senility, in my note to him. (I had, of course, borrowed it from the complete stranger who had ventured to diagnose my possible age-related intellectual incapacity -- a supposed incapacity that has caused concern on the part of my family, my employer, and all of my friends, and yet, at the same time, one that you want to insist is nothing even remotely like dementia.)

I felt fairly confident his memory was unreliable. The cause for my confidence was simply that it just didn't make sense, and that the simplest explanation was fallible memory, subject to later subconscious redaction. Perhaps he will no longer take offense to me saying so.

So far, I don't believe that my memory has been shown to be in error. I was simply mistaken about the story behind Michael Watson's letter to Professor Hamblin, something in which I was not ever involved. My assumption about it was incorrect.

[Calm]

My theory is that someone in the FARMS office contacted the First Presidency's office to confirm and bring up to date what was in the letter Professor Hamblin already possessed; the Carla Ogden fax constituted that confirmation. Perhaps that was why a 1993 date was given instead of a mid-'80s one.

This one seems quite likely.

[Zakuska]

For one thing, I've known Professor Hamblin for twenty-nine years. (I first met him in Cairo.)

No doubt you were both there to participate in a cult ritual to mark the beginning of the unleashing of your diabolocal plan to hoodwink all us Internet Mormons into pouring money into the coffers of FARMS.

[Uncle Dale]

This one seems quite likely.

Perhaps so -- but so many people seem to have seen/handled the 1985 letter.

It's odd that the mistake in dating was not caught much earlier.

UD

[dblagent007]

From: Daniel Peterson <daniel_peterson@byu.edu>

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:47:22 -0700

To: William Hamblin <XXXXXXXXXX>

Conversation: The Watson Letter

Subject: The Watson Letter

Bill:

We continue to be assaulted, with ever increasing ferocity, as liars and as senile.

So I contacted the Office of the First Presidency, and asked them whether they could locate a 1993 letter from Michael Watson to you. They have computerized records going back to 1987. They could not locate such a letter.

Are we liars? Are we senile?

Dan

For the record, I think you are acting in good faith. If you weren't, I doubt that you would have posted that the FP has no record of the letter. I do think, however, that you and Bill are most likely misremembering things.

I was interested in your communication to Bill because I thought you may have mentioned that the FP's records only go back to 1987 (you did). This leaves you and Bill open to accusations that once Bill knew the earliest date of the records (from your email), he would simply say that he obtained the letter prior to that time. I'm not sure I believe that, but his story just doesn't make sense. For example, the article Bill wrote in which he cited the 1993 Watson letter characterized the letter as being recent thereby implying that it was issued after the first Watson letter (this point was made by someone over at MDB). The 1993 Ogden fax was miscited in Alan Miner's journal article as being from Watson. Why did Watson send out the wrong answer in the first letter? The list could go on.

[Calm]

Perhaps so -- but so many people seem to have seen/handled the 1985 letter.

Who do you believe have seen/handled the letter besides Dr. Hamblin, Dan, and Bro. Watson?

[Uncle Dale]

...the EoM cites a 1981 text that may have been the ultimate source for both the FP and EoM...

Don't we find some of the same wording even before Palmer?

Do a Google search on the shared phraseology and parts of

it are traceable all the way back to Nibley's day and age.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

Who do you believe have seen/handled the letter besides Dr. Hamblin, Dan, and Bro. Watson?

I suppose --editors, proof-readers, associates, etc.

If not, then perhaps all eyes that saw "1985" can be

narrowed down to three or four pairs. But nobody has

yet made that point clear.

UD

.

[dblagent007]

Don't we find some of the same wording even before Palmer?

Do a Google search on the shared phraseology and parts of

it are traceable all the way back to Nibley's day and age.

UD

I tried that and I didn't find anything further back than the EoM. Incidentally, I deleted that part of my post since the evidence for it seems to be in dispute.

[Uncle Dale]

I tried that and I didn't find anything further back than the EoM.

Incidentally, I deleted that part of my post since the evidence for it seems to be in dispute.

I guess it depends upon which shared phrases one tries to

search the web for. Metcalfe may not find the long word-strings

in the Google Books edition of Palmer, but parts of the same

phrases occur elsewhere, before 1990 or 1993.

I'm not sure I'm interested enough to chase this stuff down.

Eventually we just get into three-word and four-word terms

that everybody seems to have been throwing around.

UD

[Daniel Peterson]

For the record, I think you are acting in good faith. If you weren't, I doubt that you would have posted that the FP has no record of the letter. I do think, however, that you and Bill are most likely misremembering things.

You and others are welcome to go with your deductions.

I'll trust to my memory, corroborated by Professor Hamblin, of having seen and read and handled a letter from Michael Watson.

The list could go on.

I'm sure it could. And there can be no doubt that, over at the Compound, it will.

I saw and read and handled a letter from Michael Watson, though, and so did Professor Hamblin.

I rather think this whole thing is reaching the point of diminishing returns. Or, rather, that it reached that point several years ago. I'm disinclined to expend much more effort on it.

The plain fact is that the Office of the First Presidency indisputably sent out a communication bearing the information given in the JBMS article. My Malevolent Stalker and some of his disciples can make all the noise they want about which secretary in the Office of the Presidency that communication came from and what its precise date was, but those are really, beyond reasonable debate, extraordinarily minor and tangential issues.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Dan,

So irritated have I become by repeated accusations that I'm a liar or that I'm losing my mind, that I actually did call the Office of the First Presidency yesterday, and a secretary there was kind enough to search through their records for me. I gave her the 1993 date. This was fine, she said, since the records of their correspondence go back to 1987. When she called back, though, she said that she was unable to find any such letter on that date in 1993, or on any date in the vicinity, although she had looked under Hamblin, Hall, and FARMS. I found this extremely puzzling, and so, she said, did she, because, she told me, the language I had reported to her sounds very much like a standard letter that they have sent out for many years now.

So I wrote to Bill and asked him, again, whether there was any chance that I was misremembering. My memory on certain things was distinct: I knew that I had seen and read and held the letter, and that it was a letter, and that it was a letter from Michael Watson.

As I've said before, though, I wasn't clear as to exactly how Professor Hamblin had made contact with Michael Watson. I had assumed that he had written to him shortly before I saw the letter, but I was always a bit hazy on that.

Now (cue drum roll), Professor Hamblin has just surprised me with something that I hadn't known, and hadn't suspected: "You are senile," he writes from Cordoba, Spain (my emphasis). "I published the letter in 1993. However, I received it while still in graduate school =before 1985." ... *snip!*

What the...

Your and Bill's timeline is... well, read below...

A few pertinent questions:

• 
  * Did you "handle"/ "read" this pre-1985 letter signed by Mike Watson?
  * Who else can affirm the pre-1985 date on the letter? (Clearly you can't.)
  * How did Bill happen to coincidentally attribute the date of Watson's pre-1985 letter to the very date of Ms. Ogden's fax to Brent Hall when you and Bill have claimed no prior knowledge of Ms. Ogden's fax?
  

But far more germane...

* If Bill Hamblin had received a letter from the Office of the First Presidency signed by Watson, why did he omit reference to the letter in the first version of his FARMS essay distributed on 8 March 1993, yet include it in his spring 1993 revision of his essay (well after Hall had received Ms. Ogden's fax)?

[William J. Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," FARMS Paper, Ham-93 (8 March 1993), 17

[Uncle Dale]

...

But far more germane...

...has recently clarified...

Yeah, even I must admit you have a point there. 1985 just doesn't seem that "recent"

when such an insertion suddenly gets added.

Rather strange...

UD

.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yeah, even I must admit you have a point there. 1985 just doesn't seem that "recent"

when such an insertion suddenly gets added.

Rather strange...

UD

.

If, as has been theorized, the Carla Ogden fax constitutes a 1993 reaffirmation of the pre-1985 letter, then it could indeed be considered recent.